PA 

3136 
F6 
1922 
MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    D5fi    fifiM 


me  Use  of  Myths  to  Create  Suspense 
in  Extant  Greek  Tragedy 


A  DISSERTATION 
presented  to  the 

Faculty  of  Princeton  University 

in  Candidacy  for  the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


BY 


WLLLIAM  W.  FLINT  Jr. 


£  m 


& 


x 
-  -  g 


IF1 v 


The  Use  of  Myths  to  Create  Suspense 
in  Extant  Greek  Tragedy 


A  DISSERTATION 

presented  to  the 

Faculty  of  Princeton  University 

in  Candidacy  for  the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


BY 


WLLLIAM  W.  FLINT  JR. 


Accepted  by  the  Department  of  Classics 
June  1921. 


/y-ca 


FOREWORD. 


The  present  study  was  originally  intended  to  be  part  of  a  larger 
treatment  of  all  the  specific  means  to  secure  suspense  employed 
by  the  Greek  Tragic  Poets.  This,  however,  outgrew  the  scope  of 
a  Doctoral  Dissertation.  The  author  hopes  to  publish  separately 
parts  of  the  larger  study. 

The  author's  thanks  are  due  to  Professor  Edward  Capps  of 
Princeton  University,  and  to  Mr.  A.  W.  Pickard-Cambridge  of 
Balliol  College,  Oxford,  who  have  read  the  manuscript  and  gen- 
erously given  suggestions  and  assistance  at  every  point. 

St.  Paul's  School, 

Concord,  New  Hampshire, 
December  1,  1922. 


49873 


THE   USE   OF   MYTHS    IN   CREATING   SUSPENSE. 


By  the  word  '  plot '  we  mean  nowadays  the  bare  abstract  of  the 
action  of  a  play  or  story,  like  a  summary  of  a  game  of  chess.  So 
we  speak  of  an  'elopement  plot',  a  'jealous  husband  plot',  and  so 
on.  The  word  /j.v6os  in  Aristotle's  Poetics  appears  in  the  process 
of  change  from  the  meaning  it  bears  in  Fifth  Century  prose,  which 
is  'story',  to  a  later  meaning  identical  with  'plot'.  Now  'story' 
means  more  than  'plot',  for  a  story  is  about  some  one;  there  must 
be  a  Red-Riding-Hood,  a  Guenevere,  or  an  Odysseus.  Thus 
when  Aristotle  names  /jlvOos  as  one  of  six  elements  of  tragedy 
(Poetics  1450  a  9),  and  says  elsewhere  that  he  intends  to  show 
xcos  Set  ovvioTaodai.  tovs  fxWovs  (ibid.  1447  a  9),  the  element  of 
p.Wos  means  more  than  an  impersonal  skeleton  of  hypothetical 
events.  It  includes  certain  fictitious  characters  whose  actions 
and  dispositions  are  already  to  a  degree  fixed  by  existing  tradi- 
tion. Concerning  the  same  characters  there  may  be  several 
traditions  varying  and  even  contradicting  each  other.  A  ju90os 
has  thus  not  the  fixity  of  history.  The  duty  of  one  who  handles  it 
afresh  is  not  that  of  the  historian,  to  discover  among  the  variants 
one  version  and  one  only  which  is  objectively  true.  So  far  from 
being  a  source  of  confusion,  a  wealth  of  divergent  stories  about  the 
same  characters  is  a  clear  advantage.  From  among  them  the 
poet  may  select  or  combine  with  an  eye  solely  to  the  artistic 
worth  of  his  creation,  or  to  a  moral  which  he  wishes  to  illustrate. 

The  Greek  tragic  poets  worked  in  a  field  of  national  legend, 
with  characters  and  events  already  familiar  to  all  or  part  of  their 
hearers.  Most  of  these  myths  were  by  the  Fifth  Century  fairly 
well  fixed  in  their  main  lines.  But  within  these  existed  an  end- 
less diversity  of  localization,  chronology,  and  minor  detail,  so 
that  a  poet,  by  combining  different  stories  or  by  alluding  to 
variants  in  the  course  of  the  action,  could  create  a  semblance  of 
uncertainty  as  to  the  issue  of  his  play.  Occasionally,  as  in  the 
stories  of  the  end  of  Oedipus  or  of  the  career  of  Helen,  the  vari- 
ants assumed  the  importance  of  flat  contradictions  on  essential 
points.     These  variants  may  be  divided  into  two  main  classes: 

1)  Variants  due  to  artistic  elaboration  by  earlier  poets  within  the 
recollection  of  the  spectators.     These  affect  our  question  of  sus- 


6 

pense  to  a  limited  degree,  as  will  appear.  In  Aristophanes,  Ach. 
417  ff.  Oeneus,  Telephus,  Phoenix,  Philoctetes,  Bellerophontes, 
and  Thyestes  are  mentioned,  each  with  some  familiar  individual 
characteristic.  (See  Demosthenes,  De  Cor.  180.)  But  in  each 
case  the  character  is  something  less  or  more  than  the  same 
character  in  the  saga.  Here  we  have  to  do,  not  with  the  shad- 
owy Philoctetes  of  a  mysterious  legend,  but  with  the  Philoctetes  of 
Euripides,  known  by  sight  and  voice  to  the  audience.  As  the 
characters,  so  the  play  itself  stood  out  in  the  mind  of  one  who 
had  seen  it  as  a  clearly  outlined  picture  against  a  nimbus  of 
poorly  related  incident  and  detail  that  was  the  ancient  saga. 
Thus  a  poet  who  rehandled  a  theme  familiar  in  contempora- 
neous literature  had  to  guard  against  two  things:  a)  following 
his  model  too  closely  for  originality,  b)  diverging  from  his  model 
where  that  model  embodied  a  consensus  of  tradition,  to  depart 
from  which  would  be  unconvincing  or  shocking.  Similarly  the 
poets  tended  to  avoid  the  stories  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  which 
lay  already  at  hand  in  a  highly  artistic  form,  contained  few  in- 
cidents big  enough  for  independent  development  (as  Aristotle 
remarks,  Poetics  23),  and  were  fixed  in  the  minds  of  every  Athe- 
nian audience.  Occasionally  older  literary  variants  are  alluded 
to  in  the  course  of  a  tragedy  as  matters  of  interest  or  as  contribut- 
ing to  the  fixing  of  a  mood.  As  an  example  of  this  latter  way, 
the  ax  with  which  Clytaemestra  killed  Agamemnon  in  Stesichorus' 
Oresteia  figures  impressively  in  Cassandra's  prophecy  along  with 
the  sword  which  Aeschylus  meant  to  be  used  in  his  play.  The 
ax  was  familiar  to  the  audience  through  the  contemporary  tradi- 
tion of  painting,  based  as  it  was  on  Stesichorus.  Literary  vari- 
ants could  be  thus  alluded  to,  followed,  or  disregarded,  in  order 
to  produce  suspense  of  doubtful  issue,  but  only  with  great 
caution. 

2)  Variants  proceeding,  from  conflicting  local  versions  of  the 
same  myth.  The  element  of  uncertainty  which  could  be  pro- 
duced by  these  means  is  perhaps  the  most  important  single  fac- 
tor in  the  suspense  of  any  Greek  play,  a)  Often  a  poet  would 
build  up  a  strong  rising  action  running  directly  counter  to  the 
main  lines  of  the  received  story  (Philoctetes,  Orestes);  but  when 
the  received  story  itself  was  honeycombed  with  contradictions 
which  the  audience  knew,  who  could  be  certain  what  dramatic 
conclusion  would  be  used  to  square  all  the  facts?     And  who  among 


the  audience  was  so  accomplished  a  mythologer  as  to  be  certain 
the  poet  had  no  authority  for  the  version  adopted?  b)  Or 
again,  a  poet  by  starting  from  an  isolated  and  little  known  ver- 
sion of  a  myth  could  develop  with  perfect  logic  a  situation  for 
which  no  precedent  existed  at  all  (Helen),  c)  Again,  the  Euripi- 
dean  device  of  a  concluding  deus  ex  machina  might  or  might 
not  affect  importantly  the  conclusion  of  a  play,  and  thus  a  plot 
might  be  developed,  humanly  considered,  on  lines  of  absolute 
heresy  and  be  mechanically  squared  with  tradition  at  the  end. 
(See  Verrall's  study  of  the  Orestes.)  Then  minor  variants  of 
the  myth  offered  endless  opportunities  for  temporary  uncer- 
tainties and  surprises. 

Thus  we  see  that  while  to  us  a  Greek  tragedy  is  a  region  of 
second-hand  thrills  and  foregone  conclusions,  it  was  anything 
but  that  to  its  proper  audiences.  Our  own  elementary  knowl- 
edge of  mythology  comes  indirectly  from  writers  of  the  Roman 
period  who  formulated  traditions  fixed  by  the  tragic  poets  them- 
selves. In  some  cases,  of  course,  notably  the  Oresteia,  the 
tradition  was  fixed  beyond  recall  even  before  Aeschylus.  But 
this  is  not  true  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Theban  Cycle,  of  the 
Heracles  stories,  nor  of  most  isolated  plots  like  those  of  the 
Medea  or  the  Philoctetes. 

An  attempt  will  be  made  in  what  follows  to  examine  the  evi- 
dence as  to  the  forms  of  myths  used  by  the  tragic  poets  in  their 
extant  works,  with  an  eye  to  determining  as  far  as  possible  how 
far  the  use  made  of  the  received  story  contributed  to  real  un- 
certainty on  the  part  of  the  audience  as  to  the  issue  of  the  play. 
Naturally  the  history  of  the  stories  will  not  concern  us  except  in 
so  far  as  they  affect  this  question.  Such  historical  material  will 
naturally  group  itself,  as  we  saw,  into  two  heads:  the  literary 
predecessors  which  limited  a  playwright's  opportunities,  and  the 
non-literary  which  enriched  them. 


I.  Stories  of  the  Trojan  War. 


1.  Rhesus. 

The  only  source  we  know  for  this  story  is  Iliad  X.  The 
dramatist  has  followed  this  closely,  introducing  a  few  conven- 
tional dramatic  devices. 


8 

a)  The  point  of  view  is  shifted  from  the  Greek  to  the  Trojan, 
and  the  two  important  incidents,  the  sending  out  of  Dolon  (149 
ff.)  and  the  arrival  of  Rhesus,  are  (264  ff.)  introduced  before  anjr 
Greeks  appear.  Consequently  we  feel  the  presence  of  Odysseus 
and  Diomedes  as  a  menace  hanging  over  the  actors,  which  may 
materialize  at  any  moment.  We  are  kept  reminded  of  this  theme 
by  the  forebodings  of  Aeneas  128  el  8'  h  86\ov  tiv  t?5'  iiyei, 
and  of  Hector  498-509.  This  passage  is  dragged  in  purely  for 
this  purpose,  because  the  event  Hector  describes  suggests  the 
Doloneia.  (The  initial  impulse  of  the  Doloneia  (II.  X,  12  ff.) 
was  the  burning  of  night-fires  by  the  Trojans,  not  the  Greeks. 
Given  the  shift  to  the  Trojan  point  of  view,  the  author  of  the 
Rhesus  had  to  make  some  such  change.  The  4>pvKTupia  is  thus 
poorly  motivated  in  the  play  and  serves  merely  to  warn  the 
audience  of  what  in  general  is  to  follow,  through  a  vague  recol- 
lection of  //.  X,  12.)  The  plot  initiated  by  Odysseus  is  strictly  an 
anachronism,  for  it  comes  from  the  Little  Iliad.  The  passage  ma}' 
be  a  reminiscence  of  Hec.  239  ff. 

b)  Magnification  of  Rhesus,  so  that  the  whole  war  is  made  to 
depend  on  this  night.  In  II.  X,  435  ff.,he  is  only  a  lay  figure 
who  owns  horses  that  may  be  stolen.  In  the  play  are  introduced 
his  strength  as  an  ally,  276-7,  290,  309-16;  his  personal  impres- 
siveness  301-8,  314-6;  his  confidence  391-2,  447-53,  467-73, 
488-91.  All  this  is  ratified  by  Athena's  prophecy  600-5,  that  if 
Rhesus  lives  through  the  night  he  will  win  the  war  for  the  Tro- 
jans. (Cf.  Soph.  Ai.  750-7.)  Also  may  be  noted  the  suspense 
which  is  developed  against  Rhesus'  entrance  by  the  messenger's 
awe-struck  account  284-6,  which  helps  animate  the  first  half  of 
the  play. 

c)  In  the  Iliad  Rhesus  had  arrived  the  day  before  or  at  some 
recent  time,  so  that  the  Trojan  camp  knew  all  about  him  though 
the  Greeks  did  not;  his  force  had  not  yet  been  coordinated  with 
the  rest  of  the  Trojans:  //.  X,  434  ver)\v8es,  ea-xaroi  aXKuv.  In 
the  play  he  arrives  after  Dolon  sets  out.  The  result  is  that 
when  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  appear  (565)  the  keen  listener 
realizes  that  they  can  know  nothing  of  Rhesus,  since  Dolon,  from 
whom  in  27.  X  they  learned  about  him,  here  knew  nothing  him- 
self. In  575-6  it  appears  that  they  are  still  after  Hector.  The 
possibility  that  they  may  get  him  is  a  real  one,  for  he  may  at 
any  moment  return  to  his  tent  and  if  so  will  be  off  his  guard. 


9 

Thus  the  issue  of  the  Iliad  is  only  made  possible  by  the  inter- 
vention of  Athena  595-607.  This  is  the  only  example  extant  of 
a  god  being  introduced,  in  the  middle  of  a  play,  to  square  tin- 
action  with  tradition. 

Dolon  is  mentioned  by  Diomedes  in  573;  we  do  not  find  out 
that  he  has  been  killed  till  591.  This  bit  of  information,  which 
leads  us  back  to  the  tradition,  follows  on  507  90,  during  which 
tradition  seemed  to  be  ignored.  Similarly  in  499  ff.  the  reminder 
about  Odysseus  comes  at  the  end  of  the  episode  of  Rhesus'  en- 
trance, where  again  tradition  was  altered.  591-2  are  followed 
by  Athena's  directions  to  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  which  put 
them  on  the  right  track;  499  ff.  come  at  the  end  of  the  episode 
preceding  Odysseus'  arrival.  Both  of  these  passages  are  evi- 
dently pointers  to  the  audience  intimating  that  the  familiar 
vers 'on  is  shortly  to  be  resumed. 

d)  The  password  in  573  would  hardly  be  introduced  unless  it 
was  to  be  used  later,  and  its  use  thus  assures  us  that  the  spies  will 
be  for  a  time  at  least  in  the  hands  of  the  Trojans.     So  682-91. 

e)  161-90.  Dolon's  stipulating  for  a  reward.  This,  like  the 
circumstance  attending  Rhesus'  arrival,  is  introduced  to  fill  out 
the  first  half  of  the  play,  for  which  no  example  already  existed. 
Similarly  the  dispute  between  Hector  and  Rhesus  in  393-453, 
which  leads  to  nothing,  and  Hector's  original  unwillingness  in 
319-341  to  accept  his  aid. 

See  Porter,  Hermathena  1913,  p.  348  ff.,  for  a  theory  about  a 
literary  version  of  the  Doloneia  between  the  Iliad  and  our  play. 
Also  Overbeck,  Gallerie  Heroischer  Bildwerke,  112  ff. ;  Schreiber, 
Annali  1875,  299;  Robert,  Arch.  Ztg.  1882,  47;  and  cf.  a  late 
Capuan  vase  in  the  Ashmolean  Museum,  which  may  have  drawn 
on  the  play,  where  the  costume  is  clearly  not  a  disguise.  The 
costume  of  Dolon  on  the  vase  at  least  does  not  establish  what 
Porter  thinks  it  does,  and  the  evidence  is  too  vague  to  be  of  use 
to  us. 

The  poet  of  the  Rhesus  produces  suspense  through  varying  a 
fixed  literary  form: 

a)  by  the  uncertainty  of  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  watch-fires, 
128; 

b)  by  the  importance  given  to  Rhesus  through  a  theme 
borrowed  from  Soph.  Aias; 

c)  by  changing  the  order  of  events  so  that  the  paths  of  Rhesus 


10 

and  of  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  converge  during  the  play  before 
our  eyes; 

d)  by  introducing  suspense  over  the  possible  murder  of  Hector, 
Aeneas,  or  Paris; 

e)  by  additional  detail:  password;  Dolon's  claim  for  reward; 
argument  between  Hector  and  Rhesus. 


2.  Aias. 

The  story  of  the  madness  and  suicide  of  Aias  following  on  the 
award  of  the  arms  was  common  to  the  Aethiopis,  the  Little  Iliad, 
and  the  Iliupersis.  The  story  seems  to  have  been  duplicated  in  the 
first  two  epics  and  alluded  to  in  the  third.  (Eustath.  on  II.  XIII 
515.)  From  the  Little  Iliad  we  get  the  essentials  of  the  Sopho- 
clean  plot,  the  madness  of  Aias,  the  killing  of  the  cattle,  followed 
by  the  suicide  of  Aias  (Procl.).  The  suicide  is  also  alluded  to  by 
Pindar  (A7,  vii  25  ff. ;  N.  viii  23  ff. ;  I.  iv  35)  with  a  possible  refer- 
ence to  the  madness  (N.  vii  24-5,  el  yap  ?jv  \  %  rav  akaOeiav  Vbkufv) 
and  the  madness  and  suicide  are  handled  by  Aeschylus  in  the 
Threissae.  (Schneidewin-Nauck,  Intr.  to  Ai.,  p.  45  ff.)  In  the 
last  paragraph  of  the  hypothesis  to  the  Aias  appear  traces  of  a 
story,  probably  older  than  ours,  by  which  Aias  was  killed  in 
battle  with  the  Trojans.  To  this  Od.  Ill  109  doubtless  refers. 
The  story  about  the  Trojans  throwing  mud  over  him  might  have 
been  a  satyric  perversion  of  this.  For  a  death  by  stoning,  such 
as  the  Atreidae  are  made  to  threaten  in  251-2  (the  chorus  are 
reporting  camp-rumor),  there  seems  no  precedent  in  the  saga.  It 
can  hardly  be  an  allusion  to  the  mud-throwing  story,  for  this  was 
done  by  the  Trojans  in  battle.  We  know  nothing  of  the  details 
of  the  version  in  the  Cycle,  and  so  it  is  impossible  to  say  with 
certainty  how  much  of  Sophocles'  handling  is  original.  The 
speech  of  Aias  in  646-92,  nominally  disclaiming  the  intention  of 
suicide,  really  affirming  it  in  veiled  language: 

654  dXX'  etjut  xpos  re  \ovrpa  nal  TapaKrlovs 

Xtijucoj'as,  cos  av  \vp.ad'  dyplaas  ep.a 

p.rjvLv  fiapelav  e£aXi>£a)jutu  Beds  ' 

juoXcoj/  re  x&P0V  ivO'  av  aaTiflrj  nixw, 

xpui/'co  t65'  «7xos  rovfiov,  exdiVTOV  (3e\oiv, 

yaias  6pv£as  evda  fit]  ris  oi/'crat ' 

dXX'  avro  vvi;  "Al8t]$  t«  gu^ovtwv  koltco. 
691  .    .    .    Kai  rax'  o.v  fx'  ictcs 

irvdoiade,  Kti  vvv  5v<ttvx&,  ceaoocixevov. 


11 

is  thoroughly  Sophoclean  and  can  hardly  be  assumed  to  have 
been  paralleled  in  an  earlier  version.  Nothing  could  be  better 
calculated  to  initiate  a  keen  suspense  lasting  over  the  following 
ode  and  episode  leading  to  the  actual  suicide.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  prophecy  alluded  to  by  the  messenger: 

752  .    .    .    et7re  K(X7rea/crji/'e,  iravTola  Texvfl 

elp^aL  kclt'  fjnap  T0vp.4>aves  to  vZv  rbbt 
Aiaf#'  U7ro  aK-qvaiai  fxriS'  cufrkvT'  kav,    .    .    . 

756  eXS  yap  avrbv  rfjde  drj/jikpa  fxbvj) 

8las  'Adapas  p.fjvis    .    .    . 

probably  comes  from  the  Aethiopis  or  the  Little  Iliad.  We  know 
that  the  time  of  Aias'  suicide  was  noted  in  the  Aethiopis  as  the 
early  morning  (Sch.  Pind.  I.  iii  53) ;  cf.  Pindar  I.  iv  35  kv  b\piq. 
wkt'l.  The  change  to  day  time  would  be  no  more  than  was  re- 
quired in  a  daytime  play.  But,  what  is  more  important,  757 
does  not  square  with  the  rest  of  the  Sophoclean  version.  Aias 
is  no  longer  suffering  from  the  wrath  of  Athena  but  from  the 
shame  consequent  upon  it;  cf.  348-52,  367,  372-6,  460  ff.,  where 
he  passes  from  bewilderment  and  savage  despair  to  the  settled 
conviction  that  life  for  him  is  no  longer  worth  living  (vid.  654  ff. 
cited  above).  752-7  is  clearly  a  survival  from  an  older  version 
which  was  not  interested  in  real  psychology,  preserved  here  for 
its  obvious  advantage  as  a  means  of  quickening  suspense  in  an 
excited  scene  (cf.  Rhesus  595-607). 

The  only  reference  to  a  previous  handling  of  the  burial  theme 
in  the  Aias  is  in  Eustathius  ad  II.,  p.  285,  34  Rom.  6  r^v  ftucpip 
"IXid5a  ypa\pas  icrTope7  fJ.r)5e  Kavdrjvat  o-wqduis  top  A'lavra,  Ttdfjpat.  5e 
ovtus  kp  aop(jo  5id  T-qu  opyrjv  tov  /3acrtXea;s.  In  the  Nckyia  Aias  is 
with  the  other  shades  and  so  must  have  been  properly  buried. 
There  are  references  to  an  Aias-cult  in  Salamis  (7.  G.  ii,  1,  594; 
Hdt.  viii,  64,  121;  Paus.  i,  35,  2);  in  Athens  he  was  the  epony- 
mous hero  of  one  of  the  tribes  (Paus.  i  5,  1;  iii,  9,  9;  Plut.,  Mor. 
628  A  ff.;  Plut.  Solon  10;  Hdt,  v  66),  and  the  mythical  ancestor 
of  the  Eurysakidae  and  Philaidae  (Marcell.  Vit.  Thuc.  3;  Plut. 
Ale.  1;  Hdt,  vi  35).  In  fact,  the  Athenians  took  special  pains  to 
appropriate  Aias  as  an  ally  through  the  settling  in  Attica  of  his 
two  sons  (Sch.  Pind.  N.  ii  19).  The  only  reference  I  can  find  to 
an  actual  tomb  of  Aias  is  Paus.  i  35.  This  was  in  the  Troad  and, 
like  the  barrow  of  Orestes  at  Tegea  (Hdt.  i  67-8),  was  connected 
with  a  find  of  bones  of  fabulous  size.     But  no  hero  who  enjoyed 


12 

the  reputation  of  Aias  in  Athens  could  have  been  thought  of  as 
cast  out  like  Polyneices.  Thus  the  suspense  which  is  initiated  in 
1047  is  purely  that  of  a  foregone  conclusion.  (Note  also  1166-7 
'ivda  fipoTols  tov  a.dy.vr\GTOV  \  tck^ov  evpojevra  Kadki-ei.  The  anapests 
at  the  end  of  the  scene  between  Teucer  and  Menelaus  remind  the 
audience  that  the  cult  existed  and  that,  therefore,  Aias  must 
somehow  be  buried  decently.)  It  is  quite  probable,  however, 
that  the  raising  of  the  burial  issue  is  new  to  the  saga  in  this  play 
and  that  its  novelty  in  part  justified  the  use  of  a  conclusion  which 
seems  to  us  tame.  In  the  passage  from  Eustathius  cited  above, 
the  phrase  5id  ttjv  bpyijv  rod  (SacuXews  is  tacked  on  at  the  end 
and  may  be  a  reason  supplied  by  the  writer  who  had  Sophocles' 
play  in  his  mind.  Nowhere  else  do  we  find  burial  referred  to  as 
a  pis-aller  for  cremation;  the  two  customs  are  parallel  in  the 
period  represented  by  the  cyclic  epics.  And  the  word  avv-qdus 
bears  the  mark  of  a  late  scholar  who  was  puzzled  at  finding  a  sim- 
ple instance  of  burial  and  set  about  to  account  for  it. 
The  myth  is  used  for  suspense : 

a)  by  developing  through  suggestive  passages  the  familiar 
myth  already  well  known,  and  excluding  references  to  other 
stories; 

b)  by  over-emphasizing  the  function  of  Athena,  foreign  to  the 
original  story,  a  detail  useful  for  momentary  suspense; 

c)  by  developing  uncertainty  in  the  play  over  the  burial  issue, 
which  was  a  foregone  conclusion  to  the  audience,  not  from  any 
version  of  the  myth,  but  from  common  knowledge  of  Aias'  status 
as  hero. 


3.  Philoctetes. 

Three  possible  endings  to  the  Philoctetes  are  indicated  in  the 
end  of  the  episode  at  1081.     They  are: 

a)  1078:    x°Stos  tclx'  o.v  4>pbv7)(nv  kv  tovtu)  Xdj3cH 

Xtoco  riv    r)pXv "   vui  p.ev  ovv  bpp.6iixeQov. 
That  is,  Philoctetes  may  accept  the  situation  and  go  to  Troy; 

b)  1054:    acpere  yap  avrbv  p.r)be  Trpoaypavarjr'  en ' 

eare  p.ipi>eiv.      obbe  gov  irpocrxPy£0txei'> 
to.  y'  ott\'  exovres  raDr'. 

c)  1069:    rj/jLuv  oxajs  fj,rj  T-qv  tvxw  bia4>depets. 
1072:    65'  eariv  i]p.Giv  vavKpaToip  6  ircus" 
1074:    a.Koba'op.ai  fiev  cos  e<f>vv  o'lktov  rXews 

Tpbs  tov8'. 


13 

Neoptolemus  is  independent  of  Odysseus  and  controls  the  situa- 
tion. Odysseus  fears  that  he  may  decide  to  take  Philoctetes' 
part  and  ruin  the  p'an. 

The  only  one  of  these  possibilities  which  receives  any  sanction 
from  the  epic  or  lyric  tradition  is  the  first.  Philoctetes  is  a  hero 
who  is  to  be  brought  from  his  enforced  habitation  at  Lemnos,  by 
whose  help  alone  Troy  can  fall.1  That  no  abstraction  was 
thought  of  between  Philoctetes  and  his  bow  is  shown  by  the 
reference  to  Bacchylides,  where  the  bow  of  Heracles  first  makes 
its  appearance.  .  .  .  oi  "EWrjves  t/c  Arjppov  //ercGrreiXai'ro  tov 
l\>CKoKTr]TT]u  *E\evov  pavrevaapkvov'  e'ipapro  yap  ixvtv  t&p  'HpaKXtLuv 
to^wv  prj  wopdr)6rii>ai  to  "IXlov  (schol.  Pind.  P.  i  53.  See  Marx  I.e.  for 
the  relation  of  Heracles'  bow  to  the  rest  of  the  story).  Philoc- 
tetes has  been-  slight  ed  by  the  Greeks,  and  the  belated  oracle 
simply  brings  him  into  his  own:  rd%a  5e  pvyaeaOat  tpeWov  'Apydot 
irapa  vrjval  ^CkoKT-qrao  clvclktos  (II.  II  724-5).  Of  recalcitrancy  on 
his  part  there  is  naturally  no  question. 

The  tragic  poets  in  handling  this  story  had  to  make  some  sort 
of  a  play  out  of  it.  They  could  not  take  it  in  extenso  as  did  the 
epic,  and  the  incident  which  most  appealed  to  the  imagination 
was  the  encounter  of  Philoctetes  with  the  messenger  of  the 
Atreidae  after  his  exile.  Obviously  the  dramatic  value  of  a  play 
dealing  with  this  scene  would  depend  upon  the  success  with  which 
the  poet  presented  a  possibility  contrary  to  the  received  version. 
Aeschylus  naturally  used  the  simplest  means  to  this  end.  Philoc- 
tetes is  represented  as  nourishing  a  deep  and  implacable  resent- 
ment against  the  Greeks;  he  broods  on  his  sufferings,  and  his 
lamentations  occupy  a  considerable  part  of  the  play  (Dio  Chrys. 
Hi  4  ff.).  Now  that  there  is  to  be  difficulty  in  bringing  him  around, 
the  function  of  king's  agent  is  shifted  from  Diomedes  (Was  Parva 
ap.  Procl.)  to  Odysseus.  Philoctetes  fails  to  recognize  him,  and 
he  tells  a  long  lie  about  the  utter  disaster  and  desolation  of  the 
Greeks;  the  conclusion  comes  presumably  after  a  simple  process 
of  persuasion  extending  over  the  entire  play,  which  finally 
breaks  down  a  vaguely  stated  conflict  of  will.  Odysseus  keeps 
his  Homeric  character  of  keenness  and  cunning  without   being 

1 II.  II  724-5;  Lit.  II.  ap.  Procl.;  Pindar  P.  i  50;  Bacchyl.  Fr.  7  Bl.,  36  Jebb, 
16  Bergk.  See  F.  Marx,  Neue  Jahrb.f.  </.  Kl.  Alt.  xiii  1904,  679.  Marx  docs 
not  do  violence  to  tradition  in  emphasizing  the  necessity  of  Philocteles'  per- 
sonal presence.     His  account  of  the  source  of  the  myths  is  uncertain. 


14 

degraded  ('OSuccea  Spinvv  icai  86\iou  .  .  .  tto\v  5e  airkxovTa  rrjs  vvv 
naKoriddas,  Dio  Chrys.  Hi  4).  What  alternative  to  returning 
with  Odysseus  Philoctetes  may  have  had  in  mind  we  do  not 
know.  In  order  to  answer  this  question  Euripides  introduced 
an  embassy  of  the  Trojans  offering  Philoctetes  the  throne  of 
Troy  if  he  would  come  and  help  them.  This  gave  an  oppor- 
tunity for  an  agon  between  Odysseus  and  the  Trojan  agent  with 
Philoctetes  as  umpire;  it  was  this  part  of  the  play  which  most 
impressed  Dio  Chrysostom  and  doubtless  formed  the  kernel  of  it. 
Odysseus  tries  to  lure  Philoctetes  under  false  pretences;  he  is  a 
friend,  forsooth,  of  Palamedes  who,  ruined  by  Odysseus,  is 
traveling  back  to  Greece  and  is  willing  to  take  Philoctetes  in  his 
ship.  How  this  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  offer  of  the 
Trojans — whether,  that  is,  Philoctetes  recognizes  the  disguised 
Odysseus  before  the  Trojans  appear — is  uncertain.  It  would 
seem  to  make  a  better  play  if  an  anagnorisis  came  first  and  if  in 
the  agon  Philoctetes  was  faced  with  the  clear-cut  choice  of  cap- 
turing or  triumphantly  defending  Troy.1  Sophocles  made  the 
suggestion  of  Philoctetes'  return  to  Greece,  which  with  Euripides 
had  been  merely  a  bait  understood  by  the  audience,  into  a  real 
possibility,  a  great  advance  in  the  creation  of  suspense.  To  do 
this  it  was  necessary  to  diminish  the  importance  of  Odysseus, 
and  to  this  end  Neoptolemus  is  made  the  pin  whereon  the  success 
of  the  project  turns,  in  violation  of  the  epic  source,  which  placed 
Neoptolemus'  arrival  at  Troy  after  that  of  Philoctetes.  (Ilias 
Parva  ap.  Procl.)  Neoptolemus'  youthful  sympathy  and  com- 
parative detachment  from  the  interests  of  the  Greek  army  make 
him  possible  in  such  a  role,  as  neither  of  the  traditional  figures 
was. 

The  distinction  which  Philoctetes  possessed  by  reasoD  of  his 
bow  opened  a  third  possibility,  namely,  that  Philoctetes  should 
be  left  on  the  island,  and  the  bow — all  that  the  Greeks  needed — 
should  be  taken.  This  theme  of  the  bow  had  entered  the  Philoc- 
tetes story  independently  of  tragedy.  In  the  Catalogue,  to  be 
sure,  he  is  only  an  archer-king  from  Thessaly  destined  by  his 

1  For  the  vases  vid.  Roscher  iii2  2337  ff.  The  evidence  is  late  and  seems  to 
conflict.  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  in  the  cave  are  robbing  Philoctetes  of  his 
bow  and  arrows.  Philoctetes  faces  the  Trojans  with  the  bow  in  his  hand, 
Odysseus  and  Diomedes  looking  on  from  the  other  side.  Evidence  for  Euripi- 
des can  hardly  be  derived  from  this  source. 


15 

prowess  to  end  the  war.  But  Philoctetes  appeared  independ- 
ently in  the  Heracles-saga,1  and  when  the  inevitable  conflation 
took  place,  his  archer's  prowess  was  made  to  depend  on  a  legacy 
from  Heracles  and  hence  gradually  became  detachable  from  his 
person.  Nevertheless  the  tradition  stuck  that  it  was  Philoctetes 
himself  and  not  this  bow  that  should  capture  Troy,  and  Sophocles 
in  spite  of  the  obvious  disadvantage  cannot  ignore  it.  Compare 
196  ff.  and  839-42  with  1053-62.  This  third  possibility  owes 
its  full  development  to  Sophocles. 

In  neither  Aeschylus  nor  Euripides  is  Lemnos2  represented  as 
deserted,  since  the  chorus  in  both  cases  were  Lemnians.  It 
does  not  matter  whether  or  not  they  had  attended  him  in  the 
past;  Philoctetes,  robbed  of  his  bow,  but  left  with  a  friendly 
chorus  on  a  populated  island,  does  not  constitute  a  tragic  ending 
to  a  play.  So  again,  in  violation  both  of  the  Iliad  (VII,  467 ;  XXI 
40)  and  the  Cypria  (Procl.  sub  fin.:  Patroclos  sold  Lycaon  at 
Lemnos),  Sophocles  makes  Lemnos  a  desert  island.  Philoctetes 
is  not  cut  off  by  the  cliffs,  for  his  cave  opens  both  on  sea  and  land 
(see  Woodhouse,  J.H.S.  1912,  239).  In  addition,  Aeschylus 
and  Euripides  make  the  coveted  bow  Philoctetes'  sole  means  of 
support,  287-9.  The  importance  of  the  bow  is  kept  in  our 
minds  by  the  business  with  it  during  the  play:  55,  where  the 
stealing  of  the  bow  is  the  essential  thing  enjoined  by  Odysseus; 
839—40,  eyu  5'  bpw  ovvtna  Q-qpav  tt)v8'  dXtws  exop.ev  to^cov,  8lx<x  roOSe 
ir\kovT€s.  TObde  yap  6  arecpauos,  tovtov  8eos  elwe  kojj.'l'^€iv.  Neoptolemus 
here  repudiates  the  purpose  of  Odysseus  to  carry  off  the  bow 
at  any  cost;  974,  where  Neoptolemus  is  stopped  by  Odysseus 
from  returning  the  bow  to  Philoctetes;  1292,  where  he  succeeds 
in  doing  so. 

Thus  in  the  Sophoclean  play  the  three  possibilities  are  fully 
developed:  a)  Philoctetes'  going  to  Troy  has  the  sanction  of 
the  consensus  of  the  saga,     b)  The  theft  of  the  bow  and  the 

1  References  all  late;  see  Roscher  iii2  2313;  there  cannot  be  any  doubt,  how- 
ever, of  the  antiquity  of  the  story. 

2  The  island  Chryse  docs  not  appear  in  the  extant  literature  before  Euripides. 
Corssen,  Pkilol.  1907,  346,  endeavors  to  show  that  it  was  a  desert  island  orig- 
inally associated  with  Philoctetes.  This  may  be  true,  but  we  must  be  quite 
clear  that  it  was  not  the  Philoctetes  of  the  Trojan  saga  but  of  the  Heracles- 
saga,  as  is  shown  by  the  vase,  Reinach,  Repertoire  ii  ISO,  depicting  Heracles 
and  two  boys  sacrificing  to  a  goddess  Chryse.  The  place  of  banishment  is 
Lemnos  in  every  case.     The  desolation  was  added  in  literature  tor  effect. 


16 

fresh  abandonment  of  Philoctetes  are  developed  out  of  the  play 
itself,  from  the  seizure  of  the  bow,  from  Philoctetes'  refusal,  even 
in  the  face  of  starvation,  to  follow  willingly,  and  from  Odysseus' 
contempt  for  the  details  of  the  prophecy.  This  is  made  a 
thoroughly  tragic  possibility  by  the  desolation  of  the  island  and 
Philoctetes'  dependence  on  his  bow.  (Cf.  Serv.  ad  Aen.  iii  402.) 
c)  Philoctetes'  return  to  Greece  with  Neoptolemus  again  grows 
naturally  out  of  the  latter's  commanding  position  due  to  the 
fact  that  he,  of  the  two,  is  unknown  to  Philoctetes,  and  the 
sailors  owe  their  allegiance  to  him.  Indeed,  it  is  the  only  human 
solution  of  the  play. 

Thus  while  no  divergence  from  tradition  occurs,  divergent 
mythical  themes  are  used  to  the  fullest  degree  to  create  suspense : 

a)  through  emphasis  on  the  Heracles  myth  in  making  Philoc- 
tetes detachable  from  his  bow; 

b)  by  depopulating  Lemnos  in  order  to  make  the  alternative 
more  tragic; 

c)  by  tampering  with  the  traditional  chronology  in  order  to 
bring  in  Neoptolemus,  and  using  him  to  strengthen  a  further 
counter-possibility. 

In  the  introduction  of  significant  detail,  the  altering  of  chronol- 
ogy, and  the  emphasis  on  the  personal  presence  of  one  character, 
the  Philoctetes  strikingly  resembles  the  Rhesus. 


4.  Hecabe. 

a)  Polydorus  and  Polymestor.  Polydorus  in  the  Iliad  (XX 
407  ff.)  is  old  enough  to  fight  with  Achilles;  there  he  is  not  the 
son  of  Hecabe  but  of  "Laothoe"  (XX  46).  The  story  of  his 
being  the  child  of  Hecabe's  old  age,  sent  into  Thrace  out  of  the 
war,  has  no  earlier  parallel  extant  and  may  well  be  Euripides' 
invention.     Of  Polymestor  there  is  no  earlier  mention  at  all.1 

b)  Polyxena.  The  sacrifice  of  Polyxena  on  the  grave  of 
Achilles  by  Neoptolemus  appeared  in  the  Iliupersis,  and  there  is 

1  Kaibel,  Hermes,  1895,  71  ff.  and  R.  H.  Tanner,  Trans.  Amer.  Philol.  Assoc, 
xlvi,  173  ff.,  point  out  parallels  to  the  blinding  scene  in  the  Cyclops.  Tanner 
shows  from  the  use  of  certain  words  in  the  Hecabe  which  are  more  appropriate 
to  the  Cyclops  that  the  former  was  written  with  the  text  of  the  latter  in  mind ; 
therefore  later.  As  the  blinding  in  the  Hecabe  is  a  surprise,  not  otherwise  led 
up  to,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  memory  of  the  Cyclops  led  the 
audience  to  suspect  it  before  the  event. 


17 

no  variant  as  to  the  general  course  of  proceedings  (Ibycua  apud 
schol.  Eur.  Hec.  41;  Iliup.  apud  Procl.  sub  fin.;  vases  in  Roscher 
iii2  p.  2735).  There  is  a  difficulty  about  the  connection  between 
the  sacrifice  and  the  resurrection  of  Achilles.  This  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Iliupersis;  but  in  the  Nostoi  Achilles  appears  (Frocl.) 
to  Agamemnon  as  he  is  sailing  off  and  prophesies  the  evil  things 
that  will  happen  to  him.  Sophocles  brings  the  sacrifice  of  Poly- 
xena  into  the  same  play  with  the  resurrection  (Longin.  de  Subl. 
xv.  7),  but  a  line  remains  from  this  play,  obviously  from  the  sort 
of  speech  made  by  Achilles  in  the  Nostoi,  prophesying  the  murder 
of  Agamemnon  in  terms  borrowed  from  Aeschylus:  Fr.  483 
Nauck:  xItuv  a'  airupos  hdvT-qpios  kclkuv.  This  speech  would  fit 
the  end  of  a  play  better  than  the  middle  and  would,  if  coupled 
with  a  request  for  the  death  of  Polyxena,  dwarf  the  interest 
in  the  sacrifice.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  both 
in  Sophocles  and  the  Iliupersis  the  sacrifice  was  motivated  by  a 
prophecy  from  Calchas  like  that  regarding  Iphigeneia,1  and  that 
the  connection  between  it  and  the  resurrection  was  first  made  by 
Sophocles  (so  Weil,  Introduction  to  Eur.  Hec.) ;  the  conclusion 
follows  that  in  the  latter  dramatist  the  sacrifice  performed  the 
function  of  the  libations  in  the  Persians  609  ff.  and  served  to 
call  up  the  dead. 

The  interest  in  our  play  is  pathetic,  primarily  relating  to  Hec- 
abe,  and  thus  the  resurrection  is  not,  as  in  Sophocles,  represent ed 
on  the  stage.  The  demand  of  Achilles  is  announced  in  the 
prologue  40-4,  and  by  Odysseus  305,  and  the  result  is  a  foregone 
conclusion,  as  is  always  the  case  when  events  are  predicted  in 
the  prologue  by  a  supernatural  being.  In  345  ff .  Polyxena  offers 
herself  a  willing  sacrifice.  Judging  from  the  analogy  of  Iphi- 
geneia (cf.  Iph.  Aid.  1375  ff.,  1552  ff.  with  Aesch.  Ag.  228  ff.)  we 
should  be  inclined  to  ascribe  this  to  Euripides'  invention,  but 
there  is  nothing  to  prove  it.  (See  the  discussion  of  Iph.  Aid. 
in  this  dissertation.)  In  the  oldest  vase  representing  the  scene 
(Roscher  iii2,  p.  2737-8)  there  is  no  question  of  a  willing  sacrifice. 

The  only  unexpected  element  in  the  handling  of  received 
myths  is  Polyxena's  willing  sacrifice.  Nevertheless,  if  w<>  agree 
that  the  Polymestor  story  was  at  least  unfamiliar  to  an  Athenian 

1  Calchas  appears  as  a  spectator  at  the  sacrifice  in  the  Tabula  Uiaca,  Roscher 
iii2,  2736,  65;  and  in  Seneca  Tro.  364,  Calchas  confirms  a  demand  already  made 
by  Achilles. 
2 


18 

audience,  the  whole  play  from  657  has  all  the  suspense  of  an 
entirely  unknown  matter. 


5.  Troades. 

There  is  no  confusion  which  could  possibly  affect  suspense  in 
t  his  play.  Our  knowledge  of  the  fate  of  Astyanax  is  presupposed 
in  713-9,  where  Talthybius  announces  hesitatingly  the  sentence 
of  the  Greeks.  Cf.  Iliad  XXIV  735  ff.  Andromache  predicts 
his  death  at  the  hands  of  the  Greeks;  Ilias  Parva,  fr.  18  Kinkel; 
lliwp.  ap.  Procl. 

Similarly  we  know  in  860  ff.  that  Helen  will  not  be  murdered. 
JNIenelaus'  intention  to  punish  Helen  with  death  and  his  inability 
to  do  it  appear  in  Ilias  Parva,  fr.  16  Kinkel;  Ibycus  ap.  schol. 
Ay.  Lys.  155;  and  schol.  Ar.  Vesp.  714;  Eur.  Andr.  628-31.  In 
lliwp.  ap.  Procl.  he  takes  her  to  the  ships.  In  the  Odyssey  they 
are  living  happily  together  at  Sparta.  For  Vases  see  Roscher  i2 
1970. 

These  two  incidents  are  not  mentioned  in  the  prologue.  Ob- 
serve, however,  that  the  fate  of  Cassandra,  where  variants  did 
appear,  is  there  settled,  41-4,  70,  by  reconciling  the  violation  by 
Aias,  son  of  Ileus,1  with  her  servitude  to  Agamemnon  (Nekyia 
422;  Pind.  P.  xi,  20).  An  obscure  variant  which  Euripides  evi- 
dently could  ignore  appears  in  Bias  Parva,  fr.  15  Kinkel  (cf.  the 
description  of  a  painting  supposed  to  illustrate  the  Ilias  Parva  in 
Paus.  X  27),  d0tK€ro  iikv  8%  kirl  rov  Kacrcra.i>8pas  6  K6pot/3os  yafiov, 
airtSave  8e,  cos  fxev  6  ifKdcov  \6yos,  inro  NeoTTciXe/JLOV,  Aecrxecos  8e  bird 
&io(jLr)8ovs  tTToirjaev.  All  suspense  of  objective  issue  is  thus  re- 
moved in  the  Troades,  so  that  interest  can  be  centered  on  the 
effect  upon  Hecabe  of  one  blow  after  another,  which  the  audience 
can,  but  she  cannot,  foresee. 


II.  Return  of  the  Greeks  from  Troy. 


1.  Cyclops. 

The  Cyclops  is  a  humorous  dramatization  of  the  ninth  book  of 
the  Odyssey  with  the  addition  of  the  satyrs.  The  satyrs  seem  to 
have  been  brought  into  the  story  by  Aristias  the  son  of  Pratinas, 

1  Iliup.  ap.  Procl.;  Overbeck  Gal.  Her.,  p.  635-55;  vases,  etc.  in  Roscher  ii, 
i,  979  ff. ;  also  the  chest  of  Cypselus,  Paus.  v  19,  5;  Polygnotus  in  Lesche,  Paus 
x  26,  3. 


19 

who  wrote  a  Cyclops,  of  which  the  only  fragment  thai  makes 
sense  is  airuiXecras  rbv  olvov  eirixtas  v8(*)p  (cf.  Eur.  Cyc.  557-8, 
which  means,  if  anything,  that  Silenus  is  trying  to  fill  up 
the  Cyclops'  cup  with  water).  That  this  connection  of  the 
Cyclops  with  the  satyrs  is  more  ancient  than  Euripides  seems 
likely  from  a  vase  published  with  a  reproduction  by  F.  Winter, 
Jahrb.  Arch.  Inst.  1891,  271  ff.,  dated  about  415  B.C.  (cf.  Robert, 
Bild  und  Lied,  p.  35),  on  which  Odysseus'  companions  are  pre- 
paring to  put  out  the  eye  of  the  sleeping  Cyclops  whilst  satyrs 
frisk  about.  The  same  story,  with  or  without  the  satyrs,  was 
handled  by  Cratinus  in  a  comedy,  probably  soon  after  this  play.1 
Nevertheless,  Euripides  follows  Homer  fairly  closely.  The 
main  variations  arc  these  (see  W.  Schmid.  Philol.  1896,  59-60) : 

a)  445-6,  507  ff,  536  ff .  The  Cyclops  sets  out  to  join  his  com- 
panions; this  is  merely  a  false  lead  to  quicken  suspense  for  the 
time. 

b)  The  blinding  of  the  Cyclops  is  not  necessary  as  in  Homer, 
because  from  the  necessities  of  the  stage  the  cave-mouth  cannot 
be  closed.  Therefore  the  motive  becomes  purely  one  of  revenge 
(422,  441,  693),  and  the  act  a  tragic  retribution  for  hybris 
(605).  The  Cyclops'  famous  speech  of  calculated  blasphemy, 
316^6,  thus  becomes  a  necessary  element  in  the  mock-tragic 
effect.  The  slaughter  of  the  companions  (397  ff.)  has  to  be  kept, 
for  the  same  reason.  In  Cratinus'  comedy  no  one  was  killed 
(shown  by  Kaibel,  Herm.  1895,  71  ff.),  but  nothing  needed  to  be 
motivated  in  comedy. 

c)  131-203.  (See  F.  Hahne,  Philol.  1907,  36  ff.)  Odysseus  has 
no  intention  of  meeting  the  Cyclops  and  only  does  so  through 
dawdling  with  Silenus.  This  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  his 
finding  someone  on  the  island  who  can  tell  him  of  the  Cyclops 
from  a  Greek  point  of  view,  but  it  none  the  less  contributes  to 
suspense. 

d)  437^0,  466-8,  619-23,  708-9.  The  freeing  of  the  satyrs. 
This  motive  appears  also  in  the  Ichneutae,  possibly  also  in  the 
Busiris  (Kaibel,  I.e.),  and  might  apparently  be  an  element  of  any 
satyr-plot.  Suspense  again  appears  only  as  the  result  of  added 
details:  the  Cyclops  going  to  join  his  companions;  Odysseus' 
desire  to  escape  the  Cyclops,  where  the  added  suspense  is  short. 

1  R.  H.  Tanner,  Trans.  Amer.  Philol.  Assoc,  xlvi  173  ff. 


20 

2.  Agamemnon. 

The  story  of  the  murder  of  Agamemnon  passes  through  three 
stages,  of  which  our  play  is  the  third. 

a  )  Odyssey  III  198,  235,  250,  303-5;  IV  91-2,  519-37;  XI  409- 
10;  XXIV  22,  97.  This  is  a  primitive  version,  in  which  Aegisthus 
seduces  Agamemnon's  wife  during  his  absence  and  murders  him 
over  a  banquet  at  his  return.  In  IV  536-7  there  is  a  free  fight 
between  the  followers  of  the  respective  rivals,  in  which  everyone 
is  killed.     Clytaemestra's  part  in  the  murder  is  secondary. 

b)  The  beginnings  of  another  story  appear  in  Od.  XI  410-29 
(Ktcl  avv  ov\op.evji  dXoxy,  XXIV  97  Alyladov  vtto  xtpo~lv  nal  ov\op.evqs 
aXoxoio.  Here  the  deaths  of  Agamemnon  and  Cassandra  at  the 
hands  of  Clytaemestra  and  Aegisthus  are  told  in  inextricable  con- 
fusion. Clytaemestra  is  certainly  thought  of  as  having  planned 
the  business  (429);  what  she  did,  beyond  butchering  Cassandra 
over  her  already  prostrate  husband,  is  doubtful.  XXIV  97  is  a 
mere  doublet  of  the  passage  in  XL  We  get  nearer  the  familiar 
version  in  III  309-10  which  lv  run  tuv  ktcdocrewv  ovk  rjoav  (schol.) ; 

rj  tol  6  rbv  Kreivas  Baivv  rafov  WpyeioLCL 
Hrjrpos  re  aTvyepr/s  kcli  ayaX/a5os  Aiyladoio, 

referring  of  course  to  Orestes.  This  is  the  earliest  notice  of 
the  mother-murder  and  implies  that  she  had  a  more  active 
part  in  the  death  of  Agamemnon  than  that  of  a  contriver. 
Lines  of  this  type  in  Homer  (see  schol.  to  Od.  I  300  ovk  olbev  6 
TroirjTris  rbv  KXvrai/z^crrpas  bird  rod  wcudbs  p.bpov)  are  generally  in- 
sertions from  later  epics  (cf.  schol.  to  Iliad  XXIV  720;  Iliad 
XXIII  843;  Od.  VIII  192  etc.)  Hesiod  referred  to  Clytaemes- 
tra's unfaithfulness  (Kat.  Gyn.  fr.  67  Evelyn-White),  and  the 
Nostoi  told  of  the  murder  of  Agamemnon  by  Aegisthus  and 
Clytaemestra  (Procl.  sub  fin.).  These  literary  references  are, 
however,  too  scanty  for  us  to  draw  conclusions  from  as  to  the 
form  of  the  story  in  the  later  epic;  we  can  only  say  that  the 
part  of  Clytaemestra  grew  in  importance,  and  that  her  punish- 
ment was  thought  necessary. 

But  the  vases  of  the  fifth  century  show  a  fairly  consistent  tradi- 
tion evidently  fixed  by  literary  authority  (Robert,  Bild  und  Lied, 
Ch.  V),  and  the  vase  in  this  series  (Robert  I.e.  No.  7)  that  deals 
with  the  death  of  Agamemnon  shows  Clytaemestra  approaching 
an  open  door  brandishing  an  ax.     The  one  outstanding  literary 


21 

version  known  to  us  between  Homer  and  Aeschylus  was  the 
Oresteia  of  Stesichorus,  and  this  we  know  from  the  quoting  of 
the  opening  lines  in  Ar.  Pax  775  to  have  been  current  and  familiar 
in  the  fifth  century.  (Linos  1-2  of  Stes.  Or.  are  quoted  as  one 
might  quote:  "Of  man's  first  disobedience  and  the  fruit  ..." 
or  "Mrjviv  aetSe  0ed."  See  schol.  ad  loc.)  There  is  no  evidence 
that  Cassandra  figured  here.  The  outlines  of  this  version  seem 
harsh  and  savage.  Clytaemestra  steps  into  Aegisthus'  place  of 
the  Odyssey,  and  the  ax  typifies  the  unnatural  brutality  of  her 
deed;  she  kills  Agamemnon  merely  to  get  him  out  of  the  way. 
This  had  also  been  treated  by  a  lyric  poet  Xanthus,  used 
extensively  by  Stesichorus  and  mentioned  by  Athenaeus,  xii, 
513A  7roXXd  5e  tQsv  "Eavdov  irapaireTroLriKev  6  1,TT)aixopos  chairep  Kai 
rr)v  'Opeareiav  KaXovp-ku-qv. 

c)  The  foreshadowing  of  the  third  and  characteristically  fifth- 
century  version  appears  in  Pindar  P.  xi  22  ff. 

iroTtpbv  vlv  dp'  'l^Lykvti    ew'  Evpiir^ 

a^ax^tcrci  rrjXe  irarpas  tuviaev  fia.pvTrahaiJ.ov  opaai  y^oKov ; 

i]  erepw  Aexet  bap.a'^op.kvav 

evvvxoi  rrapayov  Kolrat ; 

With  this  begins  the  civilizing  of  the  story  by  the  study  of  motive. 
Pindar  merely  mentions  Cassandra  (P.  xi  33)  as  killed  with 
Agamemnon,  while  Aeschylus  uses  the  Iphigeneia-theme  218-57, 
1415,  1525-9,  1555-9;  general  dissatisfaction  of  the  neglected 
wife,  606-10;  Aegisthus  1435-7;  Chryseis  1439;  Cassandra  1440- 
7,  1263,  as  all  vital  in  developing  Clytaemestra's  motive. 

The  story  is  thus  made  tragic  because,  with  all  its  horror,  it 
exhibits  a  sequence  of  cause  and  effect,  logical  indeed,  if  not 
inevitable,  with  its  root  in  Agamemnon's  history  as  well  as  in  his 
wife's.  (See  Hedwig  .Ionian's  article  on  the  development  of 
'Das  Tragische'  in  Aeschylus.  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  d.  EX.  Alt.  1908, 
322.) 

Other  elements  derived  by  Aeschylus  from  the  story  are: 

a)  Cassandra.  There  is  no  good  reason  to  suppose  that  she 
did  not  appear  in  Stesichorus,  though  we  have  no  definite  evi- 
dence. Certainly  the  passage  in  Pindar  proves  that  she  was 
part  of  the  continuous  tradition,  and  it  is  useless  to  talk  about 
her  being  taken  from  the  Odyssey  (Bild  und  Lied,  p.  180). 

b)  The  watchman  is  taken  out  of  the  Odyssey  (Bild  und  Lied, 


22 

p.  180  n.)  whore,  however,  he  was  merely  a  picket  of  Aegisthus  to 
wat  ch  for  Agamemnon's  return  (III  524-8).  The  chain  of  beacon 
fires  was  suggested  to  Aeschylus  by  an  incident  of  the  Persian 
war.  Xerxes  established  a  chain  of  such  beacons  through  the 
islands  to  announce  the  capture  of  Athens  (Hdt.  ix  3).  Fischl, 
Fernspreche  u.  Meldewesen  in  Allertum,  Prog.  Schweinfurt,  1904, 
who  collects  the  evidence  for  ancient  telegraphy,  fails  to  find  any 
other  early  parallel.  The  advantage  to  suspense  in  announcing 
the  approach  of  Agamemnon  by  these  bizarre  means  is  obvious; 
it  is  explained  to  us  8-10.  The  light  is  seen,  20.  The  chorus 
doubts  Clytaemestra's  word,  317-9;  appears  convinced,  351^, 
but  returns  to  its  doubt,  475-87;  the  evidence  is  not  sufficient 
for  it. 

c)  (From  Robert,  Bild  und  Lied,  p.  164.)  The  herald,  503 
ff.,  is  a  degraded  Talthybius,  like  the  Paedagogus  in  Soph.  Electra. 
Talthybius  saved  Orestes  from  Clytaemestra  at  the  murder  of 
Aegisthus  in  Stesichorus  (vases  in  Robert,  Ch.  V),  and  was  later 
the  companion  of  Orestes'  return  (Melian  relief,  identified  by 
his  herald's  cap,  Mittheil.  d.  Inst,  vi,  Taf.  Ivii;  Roscher,  i,  1237-8). 
Hence  it  seems  to  follow  that  he  had  early  been  represented  as 
present  at  the  murder  of  Agamemnon  and  rescuing  the  young 
Orestes,  as  he  is  said  to  do  in  Nic.  Dam.  ap.  schol.  Muller  F.H.G. 
iii  fr.  34,  p.  374. 

d)  The  brutality  of  the  Stesichorean  story  is  softened  by 
Clytaemestra's  use  of  a  sword — that  of  Aegisthus — instead  of  an 
ax.  The  strength  of  the  tradition  which  associated  an  ax  with 
Clytaemestra  both  here  and  at  the  death  of  Aegisthus  (vases 
Robert  I.e.,  Eur.  Tro.  361)  appears  from  Aeschylus'  allusions  to  it. 
There  has  been  such  confusion  on  this  simple  point  (Robert 
B.  u.  L.,  p.  176;  Wilamowitz,  Aesch.  Interp.,  p.  173  n.;  Hofer  ap. 
Roscher  ii1  1237)  that  it  may  be  well  to  quote  the  relevant  pas- 
sages in  full.     They  are: 

Sword:    Ag.  1262        kirevxtr cu  8r)yov(xa  </>cori  <$>aayavov 
6/ztjs  cryoryrjs  avTiTiaaadai  <\>bvov. 
1528-9   firjhiv  ev  "\l8ov  fxeyaKavx^'t-rco  tji&SriKrjTcp 
davoiTCj}  t'igcls  a7rep  rjp&v. 
Cho.   1011         .    .    .    <£apos  rob',  cos  e($a\pev  Aiyladov  £i<£os. 
Ax:  Ag.  1127        /xeXa7/cepa>  Xa/3oDo-a  fjirjxa.vrifAa.Ti. 

Cho.  889        00177  tls  avdpoKfxrjra  irkXeKvv  ws  raxos. 


23 

Besides  these  specific  references  to  the  sword,  the  language  else- 
where used  of  the  murder  can  only  be  taken  in  one  way: 

Ag.   1343         .    .    .    Kaiplav  Tr\r]yr]v  exw- 

Surely  a  remark  verging  on  the  obvious,  from  a  man  with  his 
skull  broken  in! 

Ag.  1405         .    .    .    vtKpos  be,  rrjcrbe  be&as  xeP°s 
epyov,  dmaias  Tenrouos. 

The  only  definite  evidence  for  the  ax  in  the  Agamemnon  is 
Wilamowitz's  emendation  of  1116  (Aesch.  Int.,  I.e.).  1262-3  is 
implicitly  ruled  out  of  court,  if  I  understand  his  argument, 
because  Cassandra  only  begins  to  visualize  the  murder  in  1114  ff. 
If  so,  why  is  she  certain  of  the  ax  in  1116,  but  in  1127  can  do  no 
better  than  ''black-horned  engine"?  As  to  the  emendation, 
surely  the  d\Xd  expresses  only  a  loose  transition  between  ideas. 
In  1115  she  sees  the  net,  and  the  'net'  suggests  one  aspect  of  the 
situation  as  a  whole.  "Net!  Nay,  his  own  bedfellow  is  a  snare!" 
As  to  iipKvs  in  this  loose  sense,  cf.  Barnes  on  Eur.  Electra  965, 
'sunt  autem  haec  proverbialia,  in  laqueos,  casses,  retia,  incidere, 
ets  apKvs  irl-KTtLv  ubi  quis  in  periculum  aut  malum  aliquod  impro- 
viso  cadiV ,  and  see  indices  to  Aeschylus  and  Euripides  for 
examples. 

Nevertheless,  neXaynepco  ix-qxap^ixarL  is  a  reference  to  the  Ste- 
sichorean  ax.  Taken  with  1262-3  it  stimulates  a  certain  curiosity 
as  to  how  the  murder  will  be  consummated.  1343  and  1405 
make  it  fairly  clear  to  the  audience  that  a  sword  was  used  and 
this  is  settled  definitely  by  1528-9. 

d)  The  complete  obscuring  of  Aegisthus  is  peculiarly  Aeschy- 
lean. It  follows  naturally  from  his  conception  of  the  story. 
The  play  is  a  study  of  Clytaemestra's  feeling  toward  Agamemnon 
and  to  this  end  the  two  are  the  only  important  figures  to  appear 
before  the  murder.  During  this  part  of  the  play  we  study  Cly- 
taemestra's hatred  toward  her  husband,  expressed  in  intense 
irony,  legitimately  interpreting  it  by  subsequent  events;  the  short 
references  she  makes  afterwards  to  the  causes  of  the  hatred  serve 
to  fill  in  the  impression  we  have  already  gathered.  To  have 
brought  in  Aegisthus  earlier  would  have  blurred  this  impression 
by  making  us  dwell  on  the  least  worthy  of  all  her  motives,  which 
Aeschylus,  like  Pindar  (/.c.),  wishes  to  suppress.     Nevertheless, 


24 

he  has  to  come  in  at  the  end  in  order  to  make  him  a  real  figure  for 
us,  since  in  the  next  play  he  has  to  be  killed. 

Stesichorus'  Oresteia  had  fixed  the  Agamemnon  story  too 
securely  for  any  suspense  to  be  developed  by  Aeschylus  as  to 
main  issues.  Mythological  suspense  appears  only  in  details:  a) 
Will  she  use  an  ax  or  sword?  and  has  she  used  an  ax  or  sword? 
b)  Will  Aegisthus  have  anything  to  do  with  the  murder?  c) 
Delay  over  the  uncertain  announcement  of  victory  by  the  fire 
telegraph. 

The  main  suspense  lies  in  the  unfolding,  not  of  Clytaemestra's 
purpose,  but  of  her  motive. 


3.  Choephoroe.     Sophocles'  Electra.     Euripides'  Electra. 
The  retribution  story  has  two  stages  only: 

a)  Od.  Ill  307-8. 

.    .    .    Kara  5'  eKravt  TarpcHpovrja 

Myiadov  5o\6/jlt]tlv,  6  ol  irarepa  k\vtov  tnro.. 

So  Od.  I  30,  298;  III  198.     In  XI  457  ff.  Agamemnon  asks  about 

his  son,  concluding  significantly: 

461  ov  yap  7T03  Te9v7]nev  eirl  x®0VL  ^i°s  'OpecrTrjs.1 

b)  Od.  Ill  309-10.  The  death  of  Clytaemestra  and  Aegisthus 
together  is  alluded  to  in  the  two  late  lines.  This  can  only  mean 
that  Clytaemestra  had  been  killed  by  her  son.  The  vengeance 
of  Orestes  and  Pylades  is  mentioned  in  the  Nostoi  (Procl.) ;  it  is 
not  said  on  whom  it  falls,  but  as  Aegisthus  and  Clytaemestra  are 
both  named  as  guilty,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  on  both.  So 
Pindar  P.  xi  37.  In  the  Oresteia  of  Stesichorus,  Orestes  first 
kills  Aegisthus;  Clytaemestra  rushes  up  with  the  ax  but  is  held 
and  disarmed  by  Taltlrybius  (vases  in  Bild  und  Lied,  Ch.  V). 
There  is  nothing  to  show  whether  or  not  he  despatched  her 
afterwards. 

The  version  of  the  Choephoroe  does  not  differ  materially  from 
this.  Aegisthus  is  first  killed  (869).  Clytaemestra  appears, 
attracted  by  the  noise  (885)  and  after  a  dispute  with  Orestes, 

1  This  strictly  Homeric  version  seems  to  be  the  source  of  the  relief  from 
Aricia  in  Arch.  Zeit.  1849,  taf.  II;  Baumeister,  Denk.,  p.  1112.  Clytaemestra 
seeks  to  hinder  Orestes,  who  is  killing  Aegisthus.  There  are  no  names  on  the 
relief,  but  this  identification  of  the  scene  (Welcker's)  is  probable.  It  is  a  good, 
archaic  Greek  work.     See  O.  Jahn  in  the  original  publication. 


25 

serving  to  emphasize  the  justice  of  his  design  and  Apollo's  will. 
is  driven  inside  and  killed  (930).  The  scene  represented  on  the 
vases  was  impossible  for  Aeschylus,  since  killing  was  not  allowed 
on  the  stage.  The  settlement  with  Aegisthus  needed  no  apology, 
but  the  interval  which  is  inserted  between  that  and  930  gives  a 
chance  to  summarize  at  the  supreme  moment  the  leading  ideas 
of  the  tragedy,  well  epitomized  in  923: 

<tv  tol  (7eavTr]u,  ovk  tyo),  KaraKTeuets- 

Notable  is  the  reference  to  an  ax  in  889.  To  the  audience,  for 
whom  the  tradition  of  her  rushing  at  him  with  an  ax  still  lived, 
this  brings  a  keen  thrill  of  excitement. 

In  Euripides'  Electra  the  separation  of  the  two  victims  is  made 
still  greater.  This  springs  naturally  from  Euripides'  new  con- 
ception of  the  story.1  Electra  is  removed  to  a  peasant's  cottage 
in  order  that  the  hatred  springing  from  her  humiliation  may  be 
the  determining  motive  of  the  mother-murder.  (Cf.  Sheppard 
in  Class.  Rev.  1918,  137  ff.  for  good  psychological  analysis.) 
Aegisthus  is  not  important  enough  to  be  brought  to  this  retreat, 
and  so  he  is  killed  at  a  festival  to  the  nymphs  (625) ;  his  death  is 
the  subject  of  the  only  proper  angelia  in  this  series  of  plays,  774- 
858,  which  intervenes  after  the  old  man  had  been  despatched  to 
lure  Clytaemestra  to  her  death  (684).  After  Electra's  speech 
over  Aegisthus'  head,  there  follows  the  stichomythia,  962-87, 
corresponding  to  Cho.  908-30,  explaining  the  necessity  for  the 
coming  deed.  Orestes'  wavering  is  thus  spread  over  a  period  (cf . 
Sheppard,  I.e.);  it  was  only  momentary  in  Cho.  (899).  Clytae- 
mestra is  ignorant  of  what  is  in  store  for  her,  while  we  see  her  on 
the  stage,  and  for  the  suspense  of  hearing  her  plead  for  her  life  is 
substituted  that  of  her  ignorance  as  against  the  irony  of  her  de- 
stroyers in  1007,  1111,  1118,  etc.  Euripides  makes  the  play. 
in  short,  one  of  intrigue.  In  the  Choephoroe,  Orestes  and  Pylades 
seize  the  palace  once  for  all  by  a  coup  dc  main,  namely,  the 
death  of  Aegisthus.  In  Euripides,  the  chances  of  miscarriage 
continue  up  to  the  end.  Aegisthus  is  taken,  not  alone  before  his 
house,  but  at  a  public  festival  surrounded  by  a  body  guard  798-9, 
631-3,  on  whose  favor,  after  the  death  of  their  master,  all  further 
success  depends  (632);  Orestes'  mastery  of  this  body  guard,  not 

■See  Wilamowitz's  convincing  account  of  this  play  in  Die  beiden  El 
Herm.  1883,  214. 


26 

the  murder  itself,  is  the  real  climax  of  the  angelia  (844-55);  even 
hero  the  forethought  of  the  plotters  penetrates,  for  it  is  the  old 
man  himself  (853,  cf.  664-6)  who  starts  the  acclamation  of 
Agamemnon's  heir.  Again  it  is  the  old  man's  business  (664-6) 
to  correlate  this  murder  with  Clytaemestra's  journey  to  us  and 
to  see  that  news  is  kept  from  her.  The  scene  before  the  hut, 
998  flf.,  is  in  its  effects  a  doublet  of  Hecabe  953  ff.  Physical  force 
is  in  each  case  kept  concealed  up  to  the  crucial  moment. 

In  literary  form,  the  version  of  Sophocles  returns  to  that  of 
the  Choephoroe.  Clytaemestra  and  Aegisthus  are  killed  in  the 
palace  within  a  few  minutes  of  each  other,  the  preparatory  dia- 
logue in  each  case  taking  place  before  us.  The  lesser  importance 
of  Aegisthus  is  indicated,  not  by  making  his  death  preliminary 
to  the  other,  but  by  relegating  it  to  the  exodus.  This  enables 
the  poet  to  keep  his  actors  in  the  excitement  of  action  to  the  very 
end;  failing  this,  he  would  have  had  to  end  with  moral  reflexions, 
and  this  is  what  he  evidently  wished  to  avoid.  The  sense  of 
danger  and  uncertainty  which  Aeschylus  neglects  to  create,  is 
made  to  pervade  the  play,  in  Orestes'  stealthy  withdrawal  (75), 
in  the  emphasis  on  the  false  story  told  at  length,  in  the  paedagogus 
mounting  guard  inside,  1326  ff.,  and  in  the  remark  ovtls  avopuv 
hbov  1369.  Much  of  this  may  have  been  in  Stesichorus  and 
been  brushed  aside  by  Aeschylus  in  his  concentration  on  the 
moral  issue,  but  our  evidence  for  the  similarity  of  the  two  ver- 
sions is  only  that  Talthybius  was  Orestes'  companion  in  the  art 
type. 

Other  incidents  of  the  dramatic  handling  are: 

a)  Anagnorisis.  The  anagnorisis  in  Stesichorus  between 
Electra  and  the  returning  Orestes  was,  if  we  are  to  judge  from 
the  Melian  relief,  a  simple  affair.1  Talthybius  accosts  Electra; 
Orestes  remains  in  the  background  at  first.  Talthybius  is  known 
to  Electra  and  to  the  old  nurse  who  accompanies  her  (Laod- 
ameia  in  Stesichorus;  schol.  ad  Cho.  733;  Arsinoe  in  Pindar  P.  xi 
17),  and  introduces  himself  and  Orestes. 

b)  Dream.  The  dream  of  Clytaemestra  was  taken  over  from 
Stesichorus,  of  whom  the  fragment  remains  (42  Bergk.) 

ra  8e  SpciKcov  eSotcrice  napa  fiefipOToipevos  ixupov' 
en  5'  apa  tov  fiaaikevs  U\ei<jdevL8as  etpavq. 

1  Discussion  in  Robert,  Bild  und  Lied,  Ch.  V.  Picture  in  Roscher  s.v. 
Electra. 


27 

The  interpretation  of  these  lines  is  uncertain.  (Compare  Robert 
Bild  unci  Lied,  p.  170-1;  Wilam.  Aesch.  Interp.,  p.  191,  for  the 
two  interpretations.)  A  dream  implies,  however,  most  of  the 
earlier  art  ion,  viz.  the  libations  and  anagnorisis  at  the  tomb. 

c)  The  price  on  Orestes'  head.  Eur.  El.  33.  The  source  is 
uncertain. 

d)  Pylades  as  Orestes'  companion  in  revenge  dates  from  the 
Nostoi  (Procl.),  where  the  story  must  have  been  expanded  to 
some  degree.  He  does  not  appear  in  the  fifth  century  art  type 
and  hence  probably  not  in  Stesichorus,  where,  to  judge  from  the 
Melian  relief,  his  part  of  assistant  was  played  by  Talthybius,  as 
by  the  paedagogus  in  Soph.  El.  (Cf.  the  passage  from  Nic.  Dam. 
quoted  by  Robert,  p.  164,  in  which  Pylades  and  Talthybius  both 
appear.)  He  is  important  for  suspense  only  through  his  three 
lines  in  Choephoroe  902  ff\,  which  give  the  effect  of  a  divine  oracle 
fortifying  Orestes'  resolution. 

e)  Chrysothemis  is  borrowed  from  the  list  of  Agamemnon's 
daughters  in  II.  IX  145,  287.  Sophocles  docs  not  dare  violate 
verisimilitude  by  placing  Agamemnon's  tomb  on  the  stage,  and 
yet  he  wishes  to  use  the  dream  and  libations  of  Clytaemestra 
and  the  offerings  of  Orestes.  Electra  must  be  kept  on  the  stage 
throughout,  and  Chrysothemis  is  requisitioned  to  carry  the  liba- 
tions. She  is  useful  as  a  foil  to  Electra  and  in  character  is  merely 
a  doublet  of  Ismene,  as  was  noted  by  Wilamowitz  in  Die  beiden 
Electren.  That  she  had  some  part  in  the  saga  between  Homer 
and  Sophocles  is  shown  by  the  type-vase  (Robert,  p.  L49a,  p. 
155),  where  she  is  present  at  the  death  of  Aegisthus. 

f)  379-84,  the  purpose  of  Clytaemestra  and  Aegisthus  to  im- 
mure Electra  is  borrowed  from  the  Antigone  {rid.  Wilamowitz,  I.e.) 
773-80,  885-90. 

In  both  the  Agamemnon  and  the  plays  dealing  with  Orestes' 
revenge,  the  issue  was  fixed  by  tradition.  Suspense  could  be 
created  cither  by  sheer  illusion  or  by  rousing  curiosity  as  to  the 
means  whereby  the  foregone  conclusion  would  be  reached. 

Details  worthy  of  note  are: 

a)  suspense  in  Choephoroe  as  to  whether  Clytaemestra  will 
resist  by  force,  889; 

b)  variation  in  the  three  plays  in  means  of  creating  suspense 
over  the  killing  of  Aegisthus; 

c)  echo  of  the  Hecabe  in  Eur.  El.  998  ff. 


28 

4.  Orestes. 

In  52-3  the  fact  that  Menelaus  is  coming  is  noted  by  Electra 
in  the  prologue.  This  expectation  governs  suspense  till  356, 
when  he  actually  appears,  and  so  all  through  the  earlier  part  of 
the  play  (243-4,  448,  634-5,  722)  it  is  assumed  that  Menelaus 
can  save  Orestes  if  he  wishes.  After  the  public  trial  it  becomes 
merely  a  question  of  punishing  Menelaus  (1099,  1105, 1143,  1171). 
Later  Electra  returns  to  the  first  idea;  if  Menelaus  cannot  be 
persuaded,  he  may  be  forced  to  save  Orestes  and  herself,  1339 
MevkXaov  17/iSs  fir)  davouras  elcndelp.  No  doubt  is  cast  on  his  abil- 
ity to  do  this.  In  the  final  crazy  scene  Orestes  returns  to  this 
idea  (1610-1).  All  this  is  suggested  by  Od.  Ill  311-2,  where 
Menelaus  appears  the  day  when  Clytaemestra  is  killed.  In 
Orestes  the  murder  happened  five  days  sooner  (422) .  Euripides' 
play,  so  far  as  suspense  goes,  is  built  up  around  this  suggestion 
that  Menelaus  may  save  the  murderers  from  the  human  conse- 
quences of  their  deed.  The  counter-action  is  provided  by  a 
public  trial,  an  entire  innovation.  The  conventional  later  his- 
tory of  Orestes,  viz.  the  Dorian  (1643-52),  appears  mechanically 
at  the  end.  Here  the  play  is  built  around  a  mere  suggestion  in 
Homer.  Obviously  in  a  situation  created  entirely  by  Euripides, 
no  matter  what  we  may  have  read  or  heard  about  Orestes,  the 
suspense  is  as  vivid  as  in  a  play  dealing  with  new  characters. 


5.  Eumenides. 

Aeschylus  said  in  the  Choephoroe  (1034  ff.)  only  that  Orestes 
would  go  to  Delphi  to  seek  atonement  and  release  from  the  Furies. 
The  Eumenides  opens  before  the  Delphian  temple.  In  Apollo's 
first  speech  it  appears  that  the  atonement  cannot  be  consum- 
mated here  (79  ff.),  but  that  Orestes  must  go  to  Athens  and  put 
himself  under  the  protection  of  Athena.  The  only  question  for 
us  is  whether  or  not  Aeschylus  had  any  precedent  for  the  story 
of  Orestes'  acquittal  by  the  Areopagus  and  Athena.  It  has  been 
assumed  by  two  groups  of  scholars  (see  Wilamowitz.,  Aesch.  hit., 
p.  189;  Hirzel,  Rh.  Mus.  xliii  631-5;  Zielinski,  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  d. 
Kl.  Alt.,  II  1899,  p.  169;  Hofer  ap.  Roscher,  s.v.  Orestes)  that 
there  was  an  old  Athenian  tradition  that  in  some  way  or  other 
Orestes  was  acquitted  in  Athens.  The  first  of  these  advance  a 
theory  that  the  story  represented  an  Athenian  reaction  against 
the  religious  authority  of  Delphi;  it  is  not  the  god  that  can  ac- 


29 

quit  of  murder,  but  the  state.  The  second  base  their  statement 
on  the  argument  that  the  Eupatrid  family  (distinct  from  the 
social  class)  traced  its  descent  and  its  name  from  someone  who 
was  pious  toward  his  father — who  could  be  none  oilier  than 
Orestes.  Therefore  Orestes  must  have  settled  in  Athens,  and 
the  story  was  a  family  legend.  Beyond  this,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  I  can  discover.  In  Eur.  Or.  939  ff.  the  story  of  Orestes' 
visit  to  Athens  and  the  founding  of  the  festival  of  the  Chocs  had 
no  bearing  on  Orestes'  fate  or  later  fortunes,  as  is  seen  by  1  he  way 
Euripides  uses  it  in  connection  with  another  story.  The  art 
representations  (see  Roscher  iii1  989  ff.)  are  too  late  to  proceed 
from  a  pre-dramatic  source.  For  our  purposes,  then,  we  must 
assume  that  the  Athenian  story  of  Orestes'  acquittal  was  invented 
whole  and  entire  by  Aeschylus.  It  contradicts:  a)  the  Athenian 
story  of  the  founding  of  the  Areopagus  which  Aeschylus  tried  to 
explain  away  in  685  ff.,  but  which  Euripides  reasserts  in  Electro, 
1258  ff.,  where  he  endeavors  to  make  peace  between  the  Aeschy- 
lean and  the  traditional  versions;  b)  the  previous  literary  tradi- 
tion as  established  by  the  type  vase  (Roscher  iii1,  979  ff.),  in 
which  Orestes  was  purified  finally  by  Apollo  at  Delphi  by  pig's 
blood  (cf.  Eum.  282).  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  (Robert 
Bild  und  Lied,  p.  181)  that  this  was  not  the  version  followed  by 
Stesichorus.  It  was  obviously  a  Delphian  story  and  Stesichorus 
composed  in  the  hey-day  of  Delphian  influence.  For  its  influence 
on  his  Oresteia  we  have  in  schol.  Eur.  Or.  258  ( =  Fr.  40  Bergk5) 
the  bow  given  by  Apollo  to  Orestes.  This  seems  to  imply  the 
Furies  and  is  thus  the  first  reference  to  them  in  this  story.  The 
provincial  story  of  the  Oresteion  in  Parrhasia  was  dug  up  by  the 
logographers  (the  earliest  source  is  Pherecydes  ay.  schol.  Eur.  Or. 
1645)  and  inserted  by  Euripides  into  a  speech  by  the  god,  like 
other  obscure  local  cults.  Cf.  Helen  1673-4,  Phoen.  1707,  Hip. 
1424,  etc. 

In  the  Eumenides,  then,  after  lines  79-80  Aeschylus  is  tapping 
a  new  source.  The  audience,  expecting  the  reconciliation  to 
take  place  at  Delphi  will  be  surprised  at  Apollo's  words,  64  ff. 

ov  70i  7rpo5co(Tco '    5td  reXoi's  5k  aoi  </>cXa£    .    .    . 
66  tyfipoioi  rots  erots  ov  yevrjaofxai  irkTruv. 

These  are  not  the  words  of  confidence  but  of  determination  in 
the  face  of  difficulties.     This  is  partially  explained  79-80.     The 


30 

essential  thing  is  that  Orestes  should  put  himself  under  the  pro- 
tection  of  the  bretas  of  Athena;  from  then  on  we  shall  find  some 
way.  No  solution  is  indicated  in  235-396,  during  the  persecu- 
tion by  the  Furies;  in  290  Orestes  heightens  our  interest  by 
proclaiming  an  alliance  with  Argos  if  Athena  saves  him.  In  397 
Athena  appears  and  without  any  declaration  of  purpose  holds  a 
preliminary  hearing  that  ends  with  a  profession  of  non-compe- 
tence (470  ff .)  parallel  to  Apollo's  in  64  ff .  In  480-9  she  outlines 
the  form  proceedings  will  take,  without  any  mention  of  the 
Areopagus  or  even  of  the  number  of  jurors  to  be  chosen — 487 
Kpivaaa  a'aorCov  tup  kfx&v  to.  fiekTioTa  /  r/£co.  In  566  she  suddenly 
reappears  with  the  jurors  and  proceedings  begin  at  once.  The 
case  is  heard  out;  while  thejurorsaredepositingtheirvotes  (676ff.), 
Athena  explains  who  they  are — that  is,  our  familiar  Areopagus; 
to  forestall  objection  the  name  is  explained  without  recourse  to 
the  Halirrhothios  story.  But  it  is  quickly  seen  (710  ff.)  that  a 
sinister  cloud  hangs  over  the  establishment  of  this  institution. 
Either  the  dread  divinities  or  the  God  of  Light  himself  must 
be  slighted  and  alienated  by  the  decision  our  Areopagus  is  to 
make — the  first  in  its  history.  We  turn  to  await  the  decision 
with  suspense  deepened  by  the  intermingling  of  patriotism  and 
pious  wonder.  In  this  awful  issue,  Hades  and  Athens  and  Olym- 
pus seem  inextricably  confused;  and  our  wonder  is  enhanced  by 
the  compelling  force  of  novelty. 

Once  the  decision  is  rendered,  suspense  turns  on  the  appeasing 
of  the  Erinyes.  There  is  not  a  man  in  the  audience  who  will  not 
sleep  easier  on  his  bed  to-night  if  some  means  are  found. 

The  play  is  thus  a  fine  tour  de  force.  For  a  long  time  it  seems 
to  drag  along  inconclusively;  but  the  hearing  itself  is  quickfy  over, 
and  the  suspense  of  the  announcement  is  intensified  by  the  bit 
of  aetiology  (681-710)  which  suddenly  illuminates  the  issue  by 
aligning  it  with  the  politics  and  institutions  of  contemporary 
Athens.  Thus  the  nature  of  the  court  is  itself  made  an  element  of 
suspense  that  runs  parallel  and  joins  forces  with  the  suspense 
about  Orestes'  fate. 

Mythological  suspense  proper  lasts  only  to  line  80.  The 
opening  of  the  play  at  Delphi  constitutes  a  strong  false  lead  that 
the  play  will  be  concluded  here  according  to  the  legend.  The 
rest  is  new  and  uncertain.  In  the  face  of  a  new  situation  the 
suspense  rests  on;  a)  the  novel  means  of  acquittal,  b)  the  bearing 


31 

on  Athens  of  the  proceedings.  Except  for  the  drama,  Orestes 
rather  drops  out  of  sight  in  the  legend  after  the  death  of  his 
mother  and  even  a  condemnation  is  not  inconceivable 


6.  Iphigeneia  in  Aulis. 

There  is  no  variation  in  the  main  lines  of  our  play  from  the 
story  of  the  Cypria  (Procl.).  KaXxcuros  be  elirbvTos  ttjv  tt)s  deov 
firjviv  kcli  'lcf>iyeveiav  Ke\evaavTOs  Oveiv  rrj  'Aprepitu,  ojs  eirl  yapov  o.vrr)v 
'AxiXXel  peTawepxpapevoi  dveiv  e7rixeipof'(nj>'  "Aprepis  5^  auTtjv  e^apwa- 
<raaa  ets  Tavpovs  peraKopl'^ei  Kal  adavarov  irotel,  eXacJMv  be  avrl  ttjs 
Kop-qs  irapio-Tricri  tco  /Scopco.  The  transference  to  the  Tauri  was 
mentioned  in  the  lost  conclusion  to  our  play  (Aelian,  H.A.  vii 
39). 

Variations  which  give  the  peculiar  character  to  this  play  must 
be  noted.  The  question  of  motivation,  (cf.  Iph.  Taur.  20-4  with 
Aesch.  Ag.  192-215),  though  significant  for  the  myth,  does  not 
concern  us  (cf.  Wilamowitz  Herm.  1883,  249  ff.).  We  observe: 
a)  the  willing  self-sacrifice  of  Iphigeneia;  b)  Achilles  as  Iphige- 
neia's  chivalrous  protector  and  later,  lover;  c)  Menelaus  as  the 
promoter  of  the  sacrifice.  The  second  of  these  requires  the  first, 
for  so  only  can  Achilles  be  made  to  rise  in  her  defense  and  then 
withdraw  without  appearing  a  poltroon. 

a)  The  self-sacrifice.1  This  was  a  stock  theme  with  Euripides: 
Macaria  in  Heracleidae,  474  ff. ;  Polyxena  in  Hec.  345  ff.  (cf.  with 
this  the  vases,  which  represent  a  forced  sacrifice):  Euadne,  Eur. 
SuppL  990  ff.;  Menoeceus,  Phoen.  991  ff.  (cf.  Eur.  Erechtheus 
(Nauck);  cf.  Phrixus  fr.  829,  fr.  833,  and  Hyg.  Fab.  2;  cf.  also 
Iph.  Taur.  669-716).  There  seems  to  have  been  no  parallel  to 
this  in  older  versions:  cf.  Aesch.  Ag.  228-38  where  she  is  bundled 
up  in  clothes,  gagged,  and  butchered.  Even  the  language  of 
Iph.  Taur.  27  pteTapcrla  \t]4>de7a'  kKai.vbp.-qv  £tc/>ei  points  to  a  forced 
sacrifice. 

The  idea  of  a  willing  sacrifice  existed  already  in  cult  myths, 
and  the  one  wliieh  lay  readiest  to  Euripides'  hand  was  that  of 
Aglauros,  the  daughter  of  Cecrops,  who  freely  offered  herself  as 
a  sacrifice  during  a  long  war  (Philochoros  ap.  schol.  Dem.  xix  303; 
schol.  Arist.  Panath.  119).  In  Paus.  i,  18,  2.  she  and  her  sister 
Her.se  dash  themselves  to  death  from  the  Acropolis  after  disobey- 

1  Since  the  above  was  written,  this  whole  subject  lias  been  made  a  Bpecial 
study  by  Johanna  Schmitt,  Freiwilliger  Opfertod  bei  Euripides,  Giessen  1921. 


32 

ing  Athena  in  opening  the  receptacle  containing  the  infant 
Erichthonius.  The  ritual  in  her  honor  was  the  Plynteria.  See 
Phot.  Lex.  p.  127;  Hcsych.  s.  v.  Il\vpTripia:  Bekk.  A  need,  i  270,  line 
2.  The  origin  of  Aglauros  is  mysterious,  but  a  sinister  side  of  her 
character  appears  in  Porphyry,  De  Abst.  ii  54;  in  Cyprus  she 
used  to  receive  human  sacrifices  until  these  were  taken  over  by 
Diomedes.  This  means  only  that  a  divinity  of  this  character, 
called  Aglauros,  was  in  Cyprus.  The  "v  Kkpo7ros"  is  a  note 
by  the  person  who  observed  the  usage,  or  by  a  mythographer. 
In  Athens  she  is  associated  with  the  Cecropian  snake  (Apollod., 
iii  14,  6,  5;  Paus.  i  18,  2)  she  is  in  fact  much  the  same  sort  of 
goddess  that  Iphigeneia  originally  was  (Harrison  in  Journal  of 
Hellenic  Studies,  1891,  350-5),  and  the  parallels  between  the  two 
are  striking.  Each  was  sacrificed  in  Greece  for  success  in  war; 
each  was  connected  with  human  sacrifice  in  a  distant  place. 
With  the  Plynteria,  during  which  the  bretas  of  Athena  was  car- 
ried to  the  sea  and  washed,  compare  the  story  of  the  bretas- 
washing  in  Iph.  Taur.  Euripides  handled  this  story  in  the 
Erechtheus,  where  one  of  Erechtheus'  daughters  was  sacrificed  to 
secure  victory  against  Eumolpus.  Her  two  sisters  committed 
suicide  (Paradox,  ed.  Westermann  219),  and  the  three  became 
afterwards  Hyades  (schol.  to  Aratus  172).  The  Hyades  are 
clearly  the  two  dew-goddesses  Herse  and  Pandrosos  plus  Aglauros. 
Euripides  hardly  called  them  by  these  names,  or  they  would  have 
appeared  in  the  mythographers  as  daughters  of  Erechtheus,  but 
the  suicide  of  Herse  and  Pandrosos,  after  Aglauros'  death,  is 
mentioned  in  schol.  Arist.  Panath.  119.  As  to  the  names  of 
Erechtheus'  daughters,  there  is  no  agreement  among  the  mythog- 
raphers. There  is  no  evidence  in  the  fragments  as  to  a  willing, 
or  unwilling,  sacrifice.  Emphasis  is  laid  on  the  willingness  of  the 
mother,  Praxithea,  to  give  up  her  daughter.  Euripides'  general 
custom,  plus  the  references  to  Aglauros  quoted  above,  are  enough 
to  make  it  probable  that  the  maiden  did  not  die  unwillingly.  See 
Eur.  Fragments  357,  360.  It  is  of  course  possible  that  the  girl 
was  only  a  child  and  had  no  speaking  part. 

A  similar  story,  not  used  by  Euripides  so  far  as  we  know,  comes 
from  Antoninus  Liberalis  25  =  Bergk  Korinna  fr.  7,  cf .  Ov.  Met . 
13,  681,  ff.  Lcrropel  ~SiKav8pos  eTepoiovfievoji>  8'  kcll  Koptwa  iTepoicou 
a'  'Qpicxivos  tov  'Ypiews  h  Boicorta  eyhovTO  dvyarkpes  Mt]tl6xv  Kai 
yievL-jnrr). 


33 

A  pestilence  fell  on  the  country  and  word  was  brought  from 
Gortynian  Apollo  ihaoaodai  hvo  tovs  'EpiowLovs  6eovs'  e#7j  5^ 
KarairavcreLV  avrovs  tt]v  /j.rjviv  ei  8vo  bvoiv  tKovaai  irapOevot  dvpara. 
yevoLvro.  These  two  girls  volunteered  and  committed  suicide, 
/cat  aural  pev  dp.c/>6repat  Kareireaov  es  ttjv  yr\v.  $>epoe4>6vq  be  /cat  "AiStjs 
o'lKTelpavres  to.  p.ev  atopara  twv  irapd'evuv  ■q^ai'Laav'  avri  b'  eKeivwv 
aarepas  avqveynav  e/c  tt)s  777s.  (Cf.  the  Hyades  in  schol.  Arat.  172 
supr.,  which  evidently  is  drawn  from  a  speech  by  a  god  at  the 
end  of  Euripides'  play.)  oi  be  (pavevres  b.vr]v'exQr[ao.v  els  ovpavov  /cat 
avrovs  uvopaoav  audpuiroi  Koprjras '  Ibpvaavro  be  iravres  "Aoves  ev 
'OpxofJ-evu  rrjs  Botwrtas  lepbv  eiriarjpov  rdv  irapQevuv  rovrccv'  /cat  aurats 
Kad'  enaarov  eros  nopoi  re  /cat  Kopat  peihiy  par  a  (pepovaLV '  rrpooayopev- 
ovo~i  5'  auras  a-xpt-  vvv  AtoXets  KopuvLbas  rrapdevovs. 

Korone  and  Koronis  are  names  belonging  to  the  cult  of  Ascle- 
pius.1  Koronis,  the  mother  of  Asclepius,  was  a  goddess  in  her 
own  right  in  Pergamon  (Num.  Chron.  1882,  p.  36,  pi.  I,  13)  and 
at  Titane  in  Sikyonia  (Paus.  ii,  11,  7).  These  Koronides  are 
identical  with  the  'Epiovvcoi  deoi  to  whom  they  are  sacrificed, 
and  these  are  local  earth-gods  who  must  be  appeased.  The 
analogy  between  the  cults  from  which  sacrifice-stories  proceed  is 
thus  striking.  The  same  cult-names  appear  occasionally  in  more 
than  one  of  them;  e.g.  schol.  Pind.  P.  iii  14;  schol.  II.  IV  195;  Hyg. 
Fab.  97.  Arsinoe  is  interchangeable  with  Koronis  as  mother  or 
wife  of  Asclepius.  In  Pind.  P.  xi  17  Arsinoe  is  the  nurse  of 
Orestes.  In  the  passage  quoted  from  Porphyry  Koronis  is  the 
ancient  name  of  Salamis,  where  Aglauros  was  worshiped  with 
human  sacrifice.  Further  discussion  of  these  matters  would 
take  us  too  far  afield.  It  is  enough  to  point  out  the  connec- 
tion of  these  early  stories  of  a  willing  sacrifice  with  a  chthonian 
worship  analogous  to  the  cult  of  Iphigeneia.  Cf.  the  parallel 
Orchomenian  story  of  Androklca  and  Alkis,  Paus.  ix  17,  1. 
Thus  the  theme  of  a  willing  sacrifice  was  secured  by  Euripides 
from  his  studies  of  myths  of  various  localities,  not  from  litera- 
ture. Where  a  willing  sacrifice  occurs  in  any  play,  the  suppo- 
sition is  from  the  beginning  that  the  sacrifice  will  be  consum- 
mated, always  with  the  possibility  of  divine  intervention. 

b)  Achilles'  chivalrous  conduct,  though  it  was  echoed  and 
developed  in  later  literature,  seems  to  have  had  no  earlier  parallel. 
Achilles  offers  his  services  to  help  Iphigeneia  (950),  and  the  sus- 

1  Full  discussion  in  Roscher  ii,  1,  1385  ff. 
3 


34 

pense  of  the  next  section  of  the  play  depends  on  what  he  may  be 
able  to  do.  This  is  curiously  crossed  in  1368-1405.  Iphigeneia 
offers  herself;  which  act  at  once  takes  the  responsibility  for  her 
off  Achilles'  shoulders  and  makes  him  really  anxious  to  save  her 
and  get  her  for  himself.  Cf.  959-60  with  1404-5.  A  com- 
promise in  the  action  is  reached  in  1424-9.  He  will  ground 
arms  near  the  altar,  ready  to  carry  off  his  Guenevere  through  the 
fire  and  the  rest  of  the  army  if  she  but  gives  the  word. 

Achilles  had  not,  except  for  the  use  of  his  name,  appeared  in 
the  story  before.  His  appearance,  and  his  vigorous  taking  of 
sides,  obscure  the  compulsion  of  the  saga  and  give  the  impression 
of  a  new  story. 

c)  Soph.  Iph.  fr.  284  (see  context  in  Phot.  Lex.  p.  410,  13)  and 
Iph.  Tanr.  24-5  make  Odysseus  the  king's  agent  as  in  the  Philoc- 
tetes.  The  fragment  represents  Odysseus  talking  to  Clytaemestra. 
Either,  then,  Clytaemestra  came  to  Aulis  as  in  Iph.  Aul.  or  the 
scene  was  Argos,  where  extraordinary  means  must  have  been 
used  to  make  a  play  out  of  it.  In  Iph.  Taur.  24-5  Clytaemestra 
clearly  does  not  go  to  Aulis.  Little  is  to  be  got  from  the  other 
fragments  of  Soph.  Iph.  Fr.  286  seems  to  be  from  Clytaemestra's 
injunctions  to  Iphigeneia  on  the  eve  of  her  supposed  marriage; 
Fr.  287  a  reference  to  the  enforced  waiting  at  Aulis. 

Menelaus  appears  in  the  Iph.  Aul.  as  the  foil  to  Agamemnon's 
wavering  instead  of  the  stock  character  for  these  roles,  Odysseus. 
This  gave  several  openings  for  Euripides'  special  genius:  304 
cowardly  bullying  of  the  old  man;  317  ff.  quarrel  between  two 
brothers  over  the  life  of  the  daughter  of  one  of  them;  480  ff. 
Menelaus  faces  about,  and  he  and  Agamemnon  reverse  their 
positions  of  317  ff.  Menelaus  thus  furnishes  the  uncertainty  of 
the  first  half  of  the  play  exactly  as  Achilles  does  that  of  the 
second.     For  neither  does  there  appear  an  earlier  parallel. 

d)  The  chorus.  Gellius,  xix  10,  says  that  the  chorus  in 
Ennius'  play  was  composed  of  warriors.  Welcker  thinks  Soph. 
Fr.  287  was  spoken  by  the  coryphaeus  of  such  a  chorus.  In  any 
case  the  lines  contain  a  suggestion  of  the  reason  why  Euripides 
introduced  the  chorus  of  sight-seeing  girls.  The  play  is  one  of 
intrigue  between  two  parties.  Now  the  natural  components  of 
the  chorus  would  be  a  group  of  soldiers  from  the  Greek  army. 
But  the  army  are  bound,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  take  sides 
in  the  intrigue,  namely,  the  side  demanding  that  Iphigeneia  shall 


35 

be  killed.  Compare  the  references  to  them  412-4,  514-25. 
Odysseus'  power  with  the  multitude,  1267-8,  may  recall  incidents 
in  the  Sophoclean  play.  Thus  some  indifferent  group  of  spec- 
tators must  be  brought  in  from  elsewhere,  and  Euripides  solves 
the  problem  with  the  maids  from  Euboea. 

Mythological  suspense  here  arises  from:  a)  the  introduction 
of  Achilles  and  the  love-story,  and  the  emphasis  on  Menelaus; 

b)  the  introduction  of  the  willing  sacrifice  idea  from  the  Aglauros 
cult-story,  new  in  drama,  but  carrying  from  its  association  with 
the  cult  the  supposition  that  the  sacrifice  would  be  consummated; 

c)  the  bizarre  chorus. 


7.  Iphigeneia  in  Tauris. 

There  are  two  clear  early  references  for  Iphigeneia's  removal  to 
the  Taurians  (Cypr.  ap.  Procl.;  Hdt.  iv  103).  The  evidence  for 
the  existence  previous  to  Euripides  of  a  story  of  her  return  thence 
to  Greece  is  scattered  and  inconclusive.  So  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  discover,  it  is: 

a)  Paus.  iii  16,  7  (Sparta),  to  be  x^piop  ro  kiropop-a'^bpepop 
AipvaZop  'Opdias  iepbp  kariv  'Ap~ep.ibos.  to  £6avov  be  kutivo  elvai 
\'eyovcrip  6  xore  'Opecrrrjs  Kai  Icfriyepeia  e.K  tt)s  TavpLKrjs  eKKkeirTOvaiv  ' 
ks  be  ttjp  (j(f)tT(.pav  AaKebaipbpioi  KOfjuodrjpaL  4>a<nv  'Opecrrou  Kai  evravda 
^aatXevoPTOs.  Kai  p.oi  eiKora  Xeyeip  paWbp  tl  boKovcnp  t;  ' Adrjvaloi. 
7roto)  yap  brj  X670J  KareKLirev  clp  ev  Bpavp&vi  'Icfriyepeia  to  ayaXpa  ; 
77  ircos,  yviKa  'AOrjvaloL  rr\v  \wpav  eKKiirelp  TrapecrKeva^oPTO,  ovk  eaedePTO 
Kai  tovto  es  rds  pads  ',  Kairoi  biapepeprjKep  en  Kai  pvp  ttjXlkovto  opopa 
rfj  TavpLKrj  0ec3,  ware  ap.<i)io-&T]TOvo~i  p.ep  KaTiraboKaL  oi  top  Ev^eipov 
oiKovPTts  to  ayaXfxa  elpat  irapa  cr<picrip,  ap.<f>icrpT)TOV(Tt.  be  Kai  Avb&p 
ols  earip  'ApTepabos  iepop  'Apaunbos.  'Adypaiois  be  apa  irapucfrdr) 
yepbpevop  Xa^vpop  rc2  Mrjbai'  to  yap  e/c  Bpavp&pos  eKopiadt]  re  es 
ZoOaa,  Kai  varepop  'ZeXevKov  bbpTOs  2upioi  AaobiKels  e<$>  r)pwp  exovcn. 
He  goes  on  to  state  reasons  why  the  real  bretas  is  in  Lacedacnmn. 

The  real  point  is  the  story  that  the  Tauric  bretas  was  carried 
off  by  the  Persians.  If  this  be  taken  at  its  face  value,  there  was 
in  480  at  Brauron-Halai  a  bretas  supposed  to  come  from  the 
Tauri.  Robert  (Arch.  Mar.  ch.  ix)  argues  against  so  taking  it. 
Clearly  there  was  in  Brauron  in  Euripides'  day  an  ancient  xoanon 
as  there  was  in  Pausanias'  day;  on  this  hypothesis  it  must 
have  been  a  substitute.  Where  then  did  it  come  from,  and  how 
would  Euripides  have  dared  to  allude  to  a  story  which  was  only 


36 

humiliating  to  the  Athenians?  Robert  also  shows  that  the  older 
cult  stories  and  names  at  Lacedaemon  connected  with  the  shrine 
of  Iphigeneia  do  not  square  with  the  Taurian  maiden  but  proceed 
from  an  earlier  cult  of  Lygodesma.  The  story  of  an  image 
carried  off  by  the  Persians  was  invented  in  Seleucus'  time  to  give 
value  and  antiquity  to  a  new  image  presented  to  the  Syrians 
from  whom  Pausanias  got  the  story  he  tells.  In  Euripides'  time 
everyone  believed  the  image  then  at  Brauron  to  be  an  original 
cult-statue.  Thus  all  the  extant  stories  containing  the  return 
of  Iphigeneia  from  the  Tauri  can  be  traced  to  Euripides'  play. 
To  this  may  be  added  the  argumentum  ex  silentio,  which  is  es- 
pecially significant  for  Herodotus. 

b)  Hyg.  Fab.  120  tells  that  Iphigeneia  and  Orestes  after 
leaving  the  Tauri  went  to  Sminthe,  an  island  near  the  Troad, 
where  they  found  old  Chryses  of  the  Iliad,  Chryseis,  and  young 
Chryses,  her  son  by  Agamemnon.  Old  Chryses  tells  his  grand- 
son who  the  strangers  are  and  their  relationship  to  him.  Mean- 
while Thoas  pursues  the  fugitives  and  the  half-brothers  combine 
to  kill  him.  After  that,  Iphigeneia  and  Orestes  proceed  to 
Lacedaemon.  The  fragments  of  the  Chryses  of  Pacuvius  indi- 
cate that  this  was  the  subject  of  that  play.  Now  there  is  also  a 
play,  Chryses,  of  Sophocles  (fragments  insignificant),  which 
Welcker  (G.  T.,  i  212)  is  certain  is  the  model  for  Pacuvius'  play. 
But  he  argues  illegitimately  from  the  unassigned  Sophoclean 
fragment,  now  Nauck  668,  rots  'EKa.Ta.las  nayidas  bbpiroov.  There 
are  also  traces  in  Pacuvius'  play  of  the  contest  of  unselfishness 
between  Orestes  and  Pylades  (Iph.  Taur.  669-715),  noticed  by 
Wilamowitz,  Hermes  1883,  249  ff.,  and  his  cosmological  frag- 
ments are  certainly  Euripidean.  Thus  while  we  have  definite 
evidence  for  Euripidean  influence  on  Pacuvius'  Chryses,  the 
supposition  of  Sophoclean  influence  rests  merely  on  the  identity 
of  names. 

A  difficulty  still  remains  in  accounting  for  the  connection  of 
Iphigeneia  with  Sminthe  and  Chryses,  which  must  be  of  Greek 
origin.  A  hint  as  to  the  source  of  this  comes  from  the  cults  that 
lie  behind  the  myths.  Chryse  of  the  Troad  (see  Corssen  in 
Philol.  1907,  346  ff.;  Roscher  s.v.  Chryse  and  Iphigeneia;  Farnell, 
Cults  of  the  Greek  States,  s.v.  Artemis  Iphigeneia)  and  Iphigeneia 
of  Brauron-Halai  are  similar  chthonian  goddesses  associated  with 
propitiatory  sacrifices,   and   it   is   conceivable  that   Iphigeneia 


37 

might  become  a  visitant  at  Chryse  or  Sminthe  (Hyg.  Fab.  120; 
cf.  //.  I  39)  as  she  did  in  the  Tauric  Chersonese,  to  a  kindred 
foreign  divinity.  (Tzctzes  on  Lye.  183  makes  Iphigeneia  and 
Chryses  brother  and  sister,  children  of  Agamemnon  and  Chry- 
seis.)  But  there  is  no  trace  of  this  in  early  Greek  literature;  the 
Cypria  contained  only  the  removal  to  the  Taurians,  and  the 
Catalogue  of  Women,  the  only  other  poem  where  such  a  tradition 
would  be  likely  to  be  perpetuated,  gave  a  still  more  primitive 
version  (cf.  Wilam.  Herm.  1883,  I.e.),  which  ignores  the  Taurian 
story,  and  in  which  Iphigeneia's  former  divinity  remains  undis- 
guised;— viz.  by  the  will  of  Artemis,  she  (after  the  sacrifice) 
became  Hecate  (Philodcm.  de  Vel.  24;  Stes.  Fr.  37  B,  Bergk8; 
Paus.  i  43).  This  version  was  followed  by  Stesichorus.  On  the 
other  hand,  Iphigeneia's  wanderings  after  leaving  the  Tauri  were 
by  later  writers  variously  elaborated  out  of  local  tales  (Paus.  iii 
16,  6;  i  33,  1 ;  i  43,  1 ;  Strab.  xii  535),  just  as  the  chivalrous  action 
of  Achilles  in  the  Iph.  Aul.  initiated  a  cycle  of  romantic  stories 
about  the  pair  (Ammian.  xxii  8,  34  f. ;  Tzetz.  on  Lye.  183;  schol. 
and  Eustath.  ad  II.  XIX  326;  Eustath.  ad  Dionys.  P.  306),  and 
our  evidence  would  seem  to  put  the  story  of  Iphigeneia's  visit  to 
the  Troad  in  this  class. 

Thus  until  the  first  mention  of  Athens  occurs  (1083)  there  is 
suspense  as  to:  a)  whether  they  will  be  saved;  b)  where  they 
will  go  if  they  are  saved. 

We  may  glance  at  certain  elements  in  our  play: 

a)  669-716.  The  contest  between  Orestes  and  Pylades  as  to 
which  shall  be  sacrificed  is  an  echo  of  the  willing  sacrifice  theme, 
the  origin  of  which  we  have  already  examined.  With  678-83 
cf.  Soph.  At.  1012-20.  Tcucer  and  Pylades  each  fear  the  accusa- 
tion of  having  had  a  hand  in  a  friend's  death. 

b)  727-826  is  occupied  with  the  anagnorisis;  904-1088  with  a 
planning  scene. 

c)  In  1152  ff.  the  plan  is  put  into  execution.  It  consists  of  the 
bretas-washing  idea  derived  from  some  cult,  probably  the 
Athenian  one  of  the  Plynteria.  Aglauros,  who  was  associated 
with  the  Plynteria,  influences  Euripides  elsewhere  as  we  have 
seen. 

d)  In  1391  ff.  the  escaping  vessel  is  held  up  at  the  mouth  of 
the  bay  by  a  sea  wind  and  driven  on  the  rocks.  This  is  natural 
but  unnecessary.     In  the  Cyclops  and  the  Helen  escapes  by  sea 


38 

occur  without  the  help  of  a  god.  Obviously  Euripides  intended 
to  have  a  deus  ex  machina  in  the  I  ph.  Taur.,  and  the  reverse  (1391) 
is  inserted  to  keep  up  suspense  until  it  began.  The  special  pur- 
pose with  which  this  deus  is  introduced  is  to  prove  a  connection 
between  two  similar  cults,  those  of  Halai  and  Brauron.  Halai 
is  located  in  the  lines: 

1450:  x^pos  tis  'i<JTLv  '\t9'l8os  irpos  kaxo-TOis 

opoiai,  yeiTotv  5etpd5os  Kapvarias 
Upos.      'AXds  viv  oi'p.6s  bvojia^ti  Xecos. 

Here  the  bretas  of  Artemis  is  to  be  settled  under  the  name  of 
Tauropolos  with  a  ceremony  commemorative  of  the  old  Taurian 
sacrifices.  The  Brauronian  temple,  however,  where  was  the 
tomb  of  Iphigeneia,  was  known  to  the  audience,  and  it  needs 
onty  an  allusion: 

ce  5'  afKJjl  aep.vas,  'I^L-ykveia,  K\ip,aKas 
Bpavpcavias  del  rfjSe  kXtiSovx^  Ota. 

(See  Paus.  i  33  and  Fraser's  notes  for  Brauron  and  Halai  and 
their  probable  location.) 

The  bear-dances  are  not  mentioned  because  they  are  harder  to 
explain.  Thus  the  suggestion  for  this  speech  and  for  the  whole 
play  lay  in  the  juxtaposition  of  these  facts:  the  story  of  a  cult 
among  the  Tauri  connected  with  both  Iphigeneia  and  Artemis; 
Artemis  Tauropolos  at  Brauron;  and  a  grave  of  Iphigeneia  at 
Brauron.  The  pains  taken  by  Euripides  to  introduce  and  empha- 
size the  divine  speech  would  indicate  that  the  facts  had  not  been 
handled  together  before. 

Suspense  appears  throughout  the  play,  as  in  the  Orestes  and 
the  Helen,  at  its  maximum  through  the  handling  of  a  brand  new 
situation.  The  grave  of  Iphigeneia  at  Brauron  was  not  a  suffi- 
ciently conspicuous  cult  to  give  many  of  the  audience  any  hint 
about  her  fleeing  there.  As  was  noted  under  the  Eumenides  all 
these  characters  have  rather  dropped  out  of  the  legend;  Iphigeneia 
since  her  removal  to  the  Taurians;  Orestes  and  Pylades  since 
the  death  of  Clytaemestra.  Euripides  carefully  includes  all  the 
known  later  history  of  Orestes  as  occurring  prior  to  the  action 
(939  ff.),  so  that  the  audience  will  have  no  lead  as  to  the  outcome 
of  this  action.  Thus  the  poet  could  elaborate  or  even  conclude 
the  life  of  any  one  of  them  practically  at  will.     In  this  con- 


39 

nection  is  to  be  noted  the  poet's  preference  for  ;t  happy  ending, 
where  one  was  not  driven  into  the  opposite  by  the  saga. 

Note  the  introduction  of  two  cult  themes,  the  bretas-washing 
and  the  willing  sacrifice.  The  latter  theme  in  all  the  other 
stories  is  consummated,  a  fact  which  leads  one  to  suspect  that  it 
will  be  consummated  here  and  hence  produces  the  suspense  of 
False  Lead.  The  bretas-washing,  being  pure  ritual,  gave  no 
lead  as  to  its  results  as  a  stratagem. 


8.  Helen. 

The  white-washing  of  Helen  was  developed  by  Stesichorus 
from  a  suggestion  in  some  Hesiodic  poem.1  For  the  content  of 
Stesichorus'  ira\t.vu)8La  see  Tzetzes  ad  Lye,  113.  \kyovtn  yap  otl 
OLtpxoiikiHxi  'A\e$;av8pu)  cV  Alyvirrov  6  Upcorevs  'EXkvrjv  dc/>eX6p€i>os, 
e'lduiXov  'EXevrjs  avrui  8e8ccKtv,  kcll  oiitlos  eir\tvaev  eis  Tpoiav,  cos  c/>7?cu 
wTjjo-ixopos.  Schol.  to  Aristides,  iii  150  .  .  .  ZTrjaLxopov  .  .  . 
\eyei  yap  kxelvos  otl  eKd&v  6  '  A\e£av8pos  eiri  ravr-qs  ttjs  vqaov  ttjs 
$dpou,  acfrypkdri  irapa  rov  ITpcoTews  ri\v  'EXevqv  nai  e'i8(i)\ov  avrrjs 
kSk^aro.  Cf.  Dio.  Chrys.,  Or.  xi  182.  nai  rov  p.lv  ^Trjalxopov  kv 
rr\  varepov  co8y  \eycLV  on  to  irapairav  oi<8k  irXevcetev  77  'EXe^r?  ov8apboe. 
clWol  8k  tlvcs  otl  dpvaadeir]  p.ev  'EXei'Ti  virb  'A\e%av8pov,  8evpo  8e  irap' 
T}p,as  els  Alyvirrov  dc^iKero. 

The  second  version  is  right,  namely,  that  Helen  did  not  sail  at 
all,  for  it  alone  exonerates  Helen  and  comports  with  the  second 
line  of  the  fragment  (26  Bergk3) : 

OVK   €<7t'    tTVfXOS    X67OS    OVTOS 

ov8'  «j3as  ev  vavaiv  ei/ereXpots 
ov8'  'Ueo  Hkpyapa  Tpoias. 

Stesichorus,  however,  did  use  the  image  (PI.  Rep.  586  C) ;  whore 
Helen  spent  the  intervening  time  herself  is  a  question.  Mayer-' 
argues  probably  rightly  that  Stesichorus  invented  the  story  pre- 
served in  the  prologue  of  our  play,  and  that  Helen  was  miracu- 
lously transported  to  Egypt.  She  could  not  have  stayed  at  home, 
and  the  only  other  place  associated  with  her,  Leuke  (supposed 
by  Welcker  and  Duhn  to  have  been  used  by  Stesichorus),  appears 

1  Schol.  LijC.  822  tp&tos  'UaioSos  irtpl  ttjs  'EXtvrjs  to  tlSuXov  iraprryayi.  May  r 
changes  'llalooos  to  Sr^ixopoj.  The  manuscript  reading  is  defended  by  von 
Premerstein. 

2  Max  Mayer,  De  Euripidis  Mythopoeia,  1883. 


40 

only  in  late  stories,  while  even  in  the  Odyssey  she  is  said  to  have 
gone  to  Egypt  (IV,  125;  228).  Cf.  //.  VI,  289,  where  she  went  to 
Sidon,  which  was  confused  by  the  ancients  with  Egypt.  Cf.  Od. 
IV,  83;  V,  282-3.  If  she  went  to  Egypt  and  did  not  board  a  ship, 
there  was  probabljr  something  miraculous  about  it,  and  whether 
or  not  Hermes  was  the  agent  does  not  much  matter. 

The  play  thus  begins  where  Stesichorus  left  the  story,  for  we 
have  no  certain  evidence  for  an  earlier  tale  of  Menelaus'  recovery 
of  Helen  that  fits  on  to  the  iraXivudia,  but  from  Stesichorus 
may  proceed  the  version  in  Apollodorus,  p.  226  Wagner,  where 
Menelaus  finds  Helen  with  Proteus.  In  this  passage  two  sources 
are  implicitly  quoted.  According  to  1)  he  reached  Egypt  with 
five  ships;  in  2)  he  finds  Proteus  living.  Thus  we  have  two  vari- 
ants from  Euripides,  not  one.  It  is  hence  unmethodic  to  clap 
these  two  together  and  father  them  on  Stesichorus  without 
further  ado,  as  is  done  by  von  Premerstein,  Philol.  1896,  642. 
The  Helen  is  an  original  story  pieced  together  out  of  the  poet's 
fancy  and  a  quaint  conflation  of  Od.  IV,  351-586;  the  rationalist 
account  in  Hdt.  ii  113  ff.;  the  plot  of  the  Iph.  Taur.,  and  very 
likely  obscure  legends  now  lost.  According  to  Lye.  820  ff.  the 
eidolon  left  Menelaus  shortly  after  he  had  put  out  from  the  Troad, 
and  his  search  for  her  occasions  his  wanderings.  Von  Premer- 
stein (I.e.)  supposes  this  to  have  been  the  Stesichorean  version, 
and  that  Euripides  retained  the  eidolon  till  the  middle  of  his  play 
to  create  suspense.  Euripides'  handling  of  this  is  undoubtedly 
effective,  but  we  are  not  entitled  to  posit  an  earlier  version  as 
certain. 

Another  conventional  theme,  the  hero  in  rags,  appears  here, 
but  its  contribution  to  suspense  is  doubtful.  The  best  discussion 
of  this  is  in  Ar.  Ach.  412-70. 

From  Herodotus,  Euripides  got  the  location,  a  palace  (a  temple 
in  Herodotus)  on  the  Canobic  mouth  of  the  Nile,  overlooking 
the  river  but  near  the  sea  (Hdt.  ii  113,  2;  Hel.  1),  and  the  germ 
of  the  sanctuary  idea  (Hdt.  ii  113,  2-3;  Hel.  64).  Proteus  is 
made  a  king  as  in  Herodotus,  not  a  sea-god  as  in  the  Odyssey, 
but  the  story  (Hdt.  ii  119,  2-3)  of  a  righteous  barbarian  and  a 
rascally  Greek,  though  dramatically  possible,  would  have  been 
an  offence  to  Greek  taste.  Thus  the  son  of  Proteus  becomes  the 
central  figure  with  a  disposition  modeled  on  that  of  Thoas — 
the    conventional   barbarian   king.     In   Herodotus   the   temple 


41 

where  Helen  was  cast  up  and  the  king's  palace  arc  kept  separate. 
In  a  play  they  must  be  run  together  or  one  of  them  discarded.  So 
the  temple  sanctuary  becomes  a  tomb  only  (cf.  Ar.  Thesm.  886- 
8),  no  longer  that  of  Heracles,  but  that  of  Proteus  himself,  in 
order  to  give  a  palpable  basis  to  the  arguments  used  by  Helen 
and  Menelaus  against  Theonoe.  In  place  of  the  Herodotean 
warden  of  the  temple  named  Thonis  (cf.  Od.  IV,  228),  the  Ho- 
meric daughter  of  Proteus  is  humanized  and  her  name  Eidothea l 
translated  into  Theonoe,  perhaps  by  the  similarity  of  sound  to 
Thonis.  She  is  naturally,  being  the  daughter  of  Proteus,  the 
sister  of  the  king's  son,  but  the  omniscience  of  her  Homeric  father 
is  bestowed  upon  her  as  a  device  to  create  suspense.  Much  of 
the  play  is  pure  humor,  e.g.  386-475.  The  mock-burial  of 
Menelaus  occupies  the  place  of  the  bretas- washing  in  the  Iph. 
Taur.  involving  the  suspense  of  persuasion  by  a  very  thin  story. 
The  previous  stage  of  planning  suggests  the  earlier  play.  With 
Eel.  1043-6  compare  Iph.  Taur.  1020-3. 

Teucer  is  introduced  in  the  prologue;  1)  to  give  us  the  Greek 
point  of  view,  71  ff.,  and  thus  quicken  curiosity  as  to  how  Men- 
elaus will  react  at  first  towards  his  re-discovered  wife;  and  2)  to 
acquaint  us  of  the  danger  to  any  Greek  who  appears  on  these 
shores  (151-7),  at  the  same  time  suggesting  that  Menelaus  may 
possibly  appear.  There  was  no  improbability  in  his  appearing 
in  Egypt  on  the  way  from  Salamis  to  Cyprus.  The  idea  of  sac- 
rificing all  Greeks,  copied  from  the  Iph.  Taur.,  is  weakly  moti- 
vated in  lines  468-70. 

Thus  the  play  contains  three  principal  themes:  1)  anagnorisis, 
a  stock  in  trade;  2)  the  omniscient  Theonoe  and  the  winning  of 
her  support,  developed  as  was  seen  out  of  the  Odyssey  and  Herodo- 
tus; 3)  the  escape,  an  adaptation  of  one  of  the  poet's  own  pre- 
vious works. 

The  only  real  indications  which  the  audience  had  as  to  the  out- 
come of  this  play  from  the  beginning  were:  a)  the  general  (latum 
that  Menelaus  and  Helen  ended  their  days  in  peace  at  Sparta;  b) 
the  general  similarity  to  the  situation  in  t  he  I  ph.  Taur.,  a  probably 
earlier  play  (Bruhn,  ed.  Helen,  p.  11  ff.).  The  other  themes, 
Theonoe,  Teucer,  the  sanctuary  of  Proteus,  the  eidolon,  were 

1  Cf.  schol.  Od.  IV  3GG.  kcu  Alcrxv^os  if  Ilpu'rel  Eii5c0*ar  a&n}p  KaXet,  Etytn. 
Gud.,  p.  310,  30.      vTroKopiariKois  cos  irap'  Ai<r\0^U}  t]  Kioto. 


42 

picked  up  from  sources  too  scattered  and  obscure  to  give  the 
audience  any  lead  as  to  their  outcome.  Thus  the  suspense,  as  in 
the  Iph.  Taw.,  is  practically  complete  from  the  beginning. 


9.  Andromache. 

Except  for  the  murder  of  Neoptolemus  at  Delphi,  the  plot  of 
the  Andromache  is  practically  new.  In  it  Euripides  tries  the 
effect  of  combining  elements  already  given  independently  of  one 
another  in  the  history  of  Neoptolemus.     The  chief  elements  are: 

a)  Andromache  as  Neoptolemus'  captive;  Nostoi  and  Iliup. 
ap.  Procl.;  Bias  Parva  Fr.  18  K.;  cf.  Paus.  i,  11,  1; 

b)  The  marriage  of  Hermione  to  Neoptolemus  is  in  Od.  IV,  4 
ff.,  where  Menelaus  sends  Hermione  to  Neoptolemus  in  fulfilment 
of  a  promise  made  at  Troy.  There  is  no  mention  of  Neoptolemus' 
death.  Compare  also  Pherecydes  ap.  schol.  Eur.  Or.  1655.  QepeavSris 
8e  c^rjcn  xept  tclLSoov  xPV^P'bv  airovvra  tov  NeoTrToXepop  avaipedrjvat.. 
kirel  Neo7rToXepos  'Ep/xibvrjv  yapLel  ttjv  MeveXaov  /cat  epxerat  £fc  AeXc/>ot;s 
irepl  iraldcov  xP7labp,evos,  ov  yap  eyevovro  e£  'EppLOvrjs.    .    .    . 

c)  The  death  of  Neoptolemus  at  Delphi. 

Pherec.    I.e.    .    .    .    /cat  bpa     Kara     xPyvTVPi-ov    KP'ta-    biapira^ovras 
tovs  Ae\<t>ovs,   a^aipelTai  ra  upka   avrovs,   avrbv   oe  urdvei  Maxatpeus 
6  tovtujv  Upevs  /cat   Karopvaaei.1    avrbv   vtto   tov  ovbbv  tov  ve&.       raOra 
7ej^eaXo7et  /cat  So^okXtjs. 
Pind.  N.  vii  40  ff. 

[Neo7TToXe/xos]  #XCT0  ^  7rpos  debv, 
KTtav'  aycov  TpteiaOev  anpodivLiov 
Iva  Kpeojv  viv  inrep  pdxas  eXacrev 

o.vtltvxoi't'  avrjp  paxatpa. 
fiapvvdev  8e  7repto"crd  AeXc/>ot  ^evaykrai 
dXXd  to  p.bpcnp.ov  airkboiKtv '    exPW  $*  Tlv'  '^vdov  aXact  7raXatrdTco 

AlaKiSav  nptbvrwv  to  Xoltov  eppevat 
deov  Trap'  euretxea  8bp,ov.  77pcotats  8e  7rop7rats  BepiaKO-Kov  ointiv. 
Pind.  Paean,  vi  105  ff. 

dXX'  ovre  piaTtp'  €7retra  Kthvav 
e'ibev  ovre  7rarpco- 
tats  ev  apovpats 
Itttovs  Mvppudbvuv 

1  Leopardus  for  ms.  kavrov  8e  Krdvet  ixax^ipq.'  6  5e  tovtlov  upevs  naropvaau. 
Cf.  Eust.  ad  Od.,  p.  1479-80. 


43 

Xa\KOKopv(iTap 

6(jli\ov  tyeipojv    .    .    . 

ufioae  yap  Oeos, 

yepaiov  os  \\p'iap\ov 

irpos  epKtiov  r\vape  fi<jj/j.di>  e- 

■KtvdopbvTa  jiT]  vlv  ev(f>pov'  es  ot[/cW 

fiyr'  kiri  yrjpas  i'£e- 

p.ev  filov    a/jufriiroKois  5e 

[K]i,p[tai']  irepi  TL/iav 

[dr]pi]a.£6iJ.evov  uravev 

[<  kv~>Ttp.k\v€i  4>L\co  yas 

Trap'  dfxcpaKov  evpvv. 

The  last  reference  indicates  the  source  of  the  story  of  Neop- 
tolemus'  death.  It  was  one  circulated  by  the  Delphian  priests, 
to  whom  the  murder  of  Priam  was  repugnant  (Iliup.  ap.  Procl.). 
The  order  will  thus  probably  be:  1)  death-story  as  above;  2) 
a  grave  of  Neoptolemus  shown  at  Delphi  to  confirm  the  story; 
3)  legend  of  an  Aeacid  buried  at  Delphi,  partially  whitewash- 
ing Neoptolemus  (N.  vii  44).  Neoptolemus  is  here  only  rjpwicus 
wofxirals  6e/j.l(TKOTros,  a  vague  office.  He  is  not  in  receipt  of  offerings, 
and  this  shows  that  the  grave  is  a  late  thing,  not  the  relic  of  an 
ancient  cult  (cf.  Paus.  x,  24,  6).  The  motivation  in  the  Delphian 
story  is  impossible.  Neoptolemus  goes  to  Delphi  because  Apollo 
wishes  him  to  do  so;  Pherecydes,  or  his  source,  saw  the  explana- 
tion for  this  in  the  lack  of  any  genealogy  ascribing  offspring  to 
his  union  with  Hermione  and  brings  in  the  familiar  theme  of 
consulting  the  oracle  about  children.  The  important  innovation 
we  find  in  the  drama  is  the  marriage  of  Orestes  with  Hermione. 
That  this  rested  on  an  earlier  story  of  some  sort  seems  probable 
from  the  fact  that  the  Sophoclean  version  is  apparently  the  ear- 
lier, and  radical  innovations  in  the  plot  are  not  in  the  manner 
of  the  Sophocles  known  to  us.1     But  in  any  case  the  direct  par- 

1  Eust.  ad  Od.,  p.  1479,  10.  In  Soph.  Herm.,  Hermione  was  given  by  Tynda- 
reus  to  Orestes.  But  Menelaus  promised  her  to  Neoptolemus  at  Troy,  ni.l 
after  the  war  she  was  taken  away  from  Orestes  ami  given  to  him.  After  the  tat- 
ter's death  she  reverted  to  Orestes.  There  are  no  sure  means  of  telling  w  hether 
this  or  Euripides'  version  is  the  older;  a  radical  innovation  in  th<-  legend  ifi  more 
after  the  manner  of  Euripides.  But  the  story  in  Sophocles  seem-  a  less  closely 
knit  one: — Neoptolemus  killed  as  in  Pindar;  Hermione  already  married  to 
Orestes  when  the  war  ends — and  therefore  presumably  earlier. 


44 

ticipation  of  Orestes  in  the  murder  of  Achilles'  son  is  almost 
certainly  Euripides'  invention.  This  incident  deserves  a  mo- 
ment's notice.  The  character  of  Orestes  in  this  play  is  one 
familiar  to  us  from  Soph.  El.  and  Eur.  Or. — harsh,  fanatical  and 
vindictive.  This  character  is  not  developed  in  our  play  but 
assumed  from  some  earlier  treatment,  which  could  only  rest  upon 
the  mother-murder.  No  such  treatment  appears  in  Aeschylus 
or  in  Eur.  El.  In  the  first,  Orestes  is  the  passive  instrument  of 
Apollo;  in  the  other,  wavering  and  soft-hearted,  requiring  to  be 
pushed  at  every  step.  Our  play  can  hardly  be  later  than  408 
B.C.,  and  the  conclusion  follows  that  it  must  be  later  than  the 
undated  Sophoclean  Electra  unless  Euripides  was  influenced  by 
a  now  unknown  work  of  some  minor  dramatist.  The  parallels 
between  the  two  plays  are  inconclusive.  The  scene  881  ff. 
vaguely  suggests  an  anagnorisis  with  Electra.  Cf.  Andr.  896-7 
with  Soph.  El.  80;  Andr.  881-2  with  Soph.  El.  660-1  (both 
conventional  tags). 

The  action  of  Andromache  (1-546)  as  a  suppliant  is  quite  new; 
it  is  a  development  of  the  common  suppliant-theme,  which  could 
be  brought  in  wherever  there  was  a  clash  between  a  weaker  and 
stronger  party  (see  later;  also  Dieterich,  Pulcinella,  p.  9  ff.) .  The 
clash  between  two  women  was  the  sort  of  thing  Euripides  would 
naturally  think  of;  the  datum  of  Pherecydes  that  Hermione  had 
no  children  appears  as  motivation  32-5,  157-8.  Menelaus  ap- 
pears in  order  to  strengthen  Hermione's  hand  and  make  a  sup- 
pliant-play plausible;  there  is  no  earlier  reference  for  his  appear- 
ance here.  Similarly  Peleus,  like  Heracles,  is  the  rescuer  which 
a  suppliant-play  demands.  In  the  Iliad  Peleus  is  merely  Achilles' 
father;  Achilles  does  not  even  know  whether  or  not  he  is  alive 
(II.  XIX,  334).  But  in  the  Nostoi  (Procl.)  Peleus  meets  Neop- 
tolemus  on  his  return,  and  there  is  no  difficulty  about  bringing 
him  in  here.  The  attempted  suicide  of  Hermione,  a  momentary 
false  lead  (811  ff.)  and  new  to  this  play,  like  the  attack  on  An- 
dromache, springs  from  Hermione's  vile  disposition.  This  dis- 
position is  created  for  the  play  and  made  additionally  plausible 
by  its  appropriateness  as  an  attack  on  Sparta.  The  murder  of 
Neoptolemus  by  Orestes  is  new  in  Euripides  and  is  introduced  to 
knit  the  threads  of  the  play  more  closely  together.  Neoptole- 
mus' errand  is  noted  in  the  prologue  (49-55)  with  a  new  motiva- 


45 

tion;  after  this  his  absence  is  noted  only  as  bearing  on  Androm- 
ache. We  do  not  expect  his  return,  for  in  79  ff.  Andromache 
sends  for  Peleus;  this  means  that  the  grandfather  will  be  the 
rescuer,  not  Neoptolemus  himself.  Orestes'  connivance  enables 
him  (995  ff.)  to  predict  the  murder  and  thus  bring  it  into  the 
main  action  of  our  play. 

There  is  thus  a  high  probability  that  things  would  end  about 
as  they  did:  i.e.  that  Neoptolemus  would  perish;  that  Hermione 
would  go  off  with  Orestes;  and  that  Andromache  would  be  res- 
cued into  some  vague  "lived-happily-ever-after"  arrangement 
and  drop  out  of  the  saga.  The  suspense  rises  from  the  novelty 
of  the  situations:  Menelaus  and  Peleus;  Andromache  and 
Hermione,  quarreling;  Orestes  appearing  in  Thessaly,  estab- 
lishing an  unheroic  and  clandestine  understanding  with  Hermione, 
and  departing  with  veiled  menaces  against  his  rival.  The  sus- 
pense of  these  scenes  arises  and  progresses  from  their  own  content 
and  thus  gets  clear  of  the  saga-compulsion,  which  is  lost  to  view 
as  the  play  proceeds.  It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  treatment 
of  this  kind  was  only  possible  with  myths  that  were  weak  in 
detail  and  less  current  than  the  Oresteia. 


III.  The  Theban  Stories. 

The  history  of  this  set  of  myths  has  been  so  thoroughly  investi- 
gated and  admirably  presented  by  Robert  in  his  Oedipus  that 
little  need  be  done  here  bej^ond  fitting  his  results  to  our  study. 
The  use  of  his  book  will  be  assumed  throughout  this  section. 


1.  Oedipus  Tyrannus. 

This  play  is  entirely  devoted  to  an  anagnorisis.  In  such  a 
unique  plot  incidents  have  to  be  crowded  in  from  other  sources 
or  invented,  and  these  we  shall  summarize: 

a)  The  herdsmen  and  the  double  anagnorisis.  The  only  pre- 
vious form  of  the  anagnorisis  known  to  us  is  the  simple  one 
sketched  in  Od.  XI,  274.  In  addition  to  this,  Robert  believes 
that  0.  T.  1032,  irodolv  iiu  iipdpa  p.apTi>pr]aeuv  to.  era,  points  to  a 
version  where  this  was  the  only  means  of  the  anagnorisis.  It 
is  the  only  evidence  we  have,  and  as  it  is  unnecessary  here,  it  is 


46 

probably  a  reference  to  some  earlier  story.  In  the  Thebais, 
time  was  allowed  for  Oedipus  to  have  children,1  and  it  is  hard  to 
see  how  this  could  have  been  done  if  the  swollen  feet  were  alone 
used.  Probably  the  oracle  or  Teiresias  entered  as  well,  or  recog- 
nition was  effected  by  exchange  of  confidences  as  in  the  Pisander 
schol.  to  Phoen.  1760. 

The  entry  of  herdsmen  into  the  play  is  perhaps  Sophoclean. 
Robert  argues  that  Oedipus  was  reared  among  the  shepherds  of 
Cithaeron  in  the  Aeschylean  trilogy,  but  the  only  pre-tragic 
source  for  his  early  history  is  the  Euphorbus  vase  (p.  73),  which 
represents  him  carried  in  the  arms  of  a  young  nobleman,  could  fit 
only  his  rearing  at  some  court,  and  would  exclude  the  shepherds 
altogether.  This  is,  however,  too  uncertain  ground  to  be  profit- 
able for  us.  We  do  not  even  know  whether  or  not  Aeschylus 
handled  the  anagnorisis;  Robert's  reconstruction  of  the  trilogy, 
excluding  it,  is  built  around  the  a  priori  statement  (p.  274  ff.) 
that  Aeschylus  must  have  handled  Oedipus'  death  in  a  play.  But 
surely,  on  his  own  showing,  this  is  a  most  hazy  feature,  which 
admits  the  greatest  variation  in  the  earlier  stories.  Both  Sopho- 
cles in  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus  and  Euripides  in  the  Phoenissae 
seem  uncertain  about  the  death,  while  the  anagnorisis  idea  is  the 
most  obvious  theme  for  a  tragedy  in  this  whole  "cycle".  Thus 
the  suspense  on  the  appearance  of  the  first  shepherd  rises,  as 
throughout  Euripides'  Andromache,  from  the  situation  itself  and 
frees  itself  from  the  data  of  the  saga. 

b)  The  plague.  There  is  no  earlier  source  for  this,2  and  it 
was  probably  invented  by  Sophocles.  It  furnishes  the  initial  im- 
pulse that  disturbs  the  status  quo.  Observe  that  the  initial  scene 
does  not  contain  the  initial  impulse,  which  lies  before  the  play 
opens.  Oedipus  has  sent  to  Delphi,  and  hence  the  prologue  is 
merely  exposition.  This  is  to  save  time.  From  the  plague 
spring  the  appeals  to  Delphi  and  to  Teiresias,  who  is  also  new  in 
this  connection.  In  the  ancient  story  Teiresias  probably  figured 
alone;  Delphi  substituted  itself  for  him  at  the  time  when  it  re- 
modeled many  of  the  ancient  myths.3     The  Teiresias  scene  is 

1  For  the  various  names  of  Oedipus'  wife  see  Robert,  p.  109.  Robert 
maintains  that  thejr  are  all  variants  for  the  same  person  and  that  in  no  story 
was  Oedipus  married  more  than  once. 

2  Robert,  p.  69,  suggests  that  the  idea  was  borrowed  from  Iliad,  I  48-83. 

3  See  Robert,  p.  68  ff. 


47 

remarkable  in  that  it  contains  the  whole  content  of  the  anagno- 
risis, even  to  Oedipus'  subsequent  wandering.  (Robert,  p.  290. 
Note  lines  35(M,  3G2,  366-7,  413-23,  449-60.)  This  in  a  play 
where  the  issue  is  bound  to  be  foreknown,  so  far  from  diminishing 
suspense,  actually  stimulates  it,  for  it  puts  Oedipus  in  big  in- 
credulity under  a  cloud  of  arrj  that  adds  a  horror  and  wonder 
to  the  general  effect.  As  the  Teiresias  scene  follows  on  the 
plague,  so  the  quarrel  with  Creon  springs  inevitably  out  of 
Teiresias'  statements.  For  Oedipus  to  hear  this  clear  speaking 
and  remain  absolutely  confident  of  his  own  position,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  him  pitch  on  some  particularly  violent  line  of 
reasoning,1  which  by  a  single  basic  assumption  sweeps  Teiresias 
out  of  consideration.  This  line  is  supplied  by  the  notion  that 
the  seer  is  party  to  a  plot  (346-9;  385  ff.;  cf.  124).  This  mis- 
guided theme  supplies  suspense  for  a  certain  distance.  Note 
that  it,  like  the  investigation  into  the  murder  of  Laius,  is  never 
expressly  concluded.  Both  are  swallowed  up  from  1016  in  the 
supreme  issue  of  Oedipus'  birth.  The  function  of  the  plague  is 
to  start  the  suspense  along  new  lines,  foreign  to  the  old  story, 
and,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  moment,  to  introduce  the  sentence  on 
the  murderer  of  Laius,  upon  which  Oedipus'  fate  is  made  to 
depend. 

c)  Iocaste.  In  Od.  XI,  277-8  Iocaste  hangs  herself  after  the 
anagnorisis;  she  is  not  present  in  the  Seven  against  Thebes  (see 
Robert,  p.  263),  and  therefore  she  must  have  died  at  this  time  in 
the  Aeschylean  trilogy.  But  in  some  version  prevalent  before 
the  dramatists,  which  one  naturally  infers  to  be  the  Thebais,  she 
was  present  at  the  war  and  mourned  the  conflict  of  her  sons. 
(Paus.  ix  4,  2;  IX  5,  11  /ecu  'Ovaalas  IlXaTcuacnv  'iypa\f>e  Karrjcprj  tt\v 
Evpvyav€iav  kirl  rfj  p,axv  twv  7rauW.  This  is  assuming  the  iden- 
tity of  Iocaste  and  Euryganeia.     See  Robert,  p.  180  ff.) 

Sophocles  had  this  choice.  The  manner  of  her  going  strongly 
suggests  the  suicide,  1072-5.  Note  the  cryptic  a\\o  5'  ovwod' 
vortpov.  The  chorus  then  utters  a  conventional  warning  (cf. 
Ant.  1244-5;  766-7;  Trach.  813^).  Suspense  about  Iocaste  <;ets 
no  clear  lead  from  the  saga,  because  there  were  two  conflicting 
stories.  Thus  it  develops  out  of  the  play  itself,  like  the  Buspense 
concerning  Oedipus'  fate. 

1  See  Robert's  keen  analysis  of  Oedipus'  reasoning,  p.  293  ff. 


48 

d)  Future  of  Oedipus.  In  the  earliest  version,  which  lay  back 
of  7/.  XXIII,  678;  Od.  XI,  279-80;  Hes.  Erg.  161-5;  Eoiae,  frr. 
99  A  and  99  Evelyn-White,  Oedipus  had  a  long  and  stormy  career 
as  King  of  Thebes  after  the  anagnorisis  and  the  death  of  his  wife, 
fell  in  battle  against  the  Minyae,  and  was  buried  with  appropriate 
magnificence  (Robert,  p.  112  ff.). 

The  dramatists  preserve  two  versions  which  exclude  the 
former: 

1.  Soph.,  0.  T.  421,  454,  1451^,  1436-9;  cf.  236  ff.,  816  ff., 
1340,  1381  ff.,  0.  C,  3  ff.  Oedipus  goes,  a  blind,  wandering 
beggar,  first  over  Cithaeron,  later  throughout  Hellas. 

2.  Euripides,  Phoen.  64  ff.;  cf.  0.  T.  1424.  Oedipus  is  kept  a 
prisoner  in  the  house  as  being  too  polluted  for  the  light  of  the  sun 
to  look  upon. 

Robert  believes  both  of  these  to  be  echoes  of  "eine  uralte, 
liber  das  Epos  zuruckreichende  Sagenform"  (p.  17).  This  he 
bases  on  the  necessity  of  perpetuating  in  the  human  successor 
the  sufferings  of  the  old  year-god.  This  only  concerns  us  in  so 
far  as  variants  to  this  effect  existed  at  the  time  the  Oedipus 
Tyr -annus  appeared.  For  the  wandering,  there  seems  to  be  no 
earlier  evidence,  although  Robert  (p.  17)  believes  it  to  have  been 
a  part  of  the  earliest  saga.  The  Thebais  fragments  (2  and  3 
Evelyn- White)  present  the  same  picture  as  the  Phoenissae,  a  blind 
(cf.  (ppaaOrj  fr.  2;  tv6-q<j€  fr.  3)  old  man  living  on  in  the  palace 
dependent  on  his  sons  and  impotent  except  for  his  power  to 
curse.  The  blindness  was  kept  by  Aeschylus  (Sept.  783  f.).  Of 
the  two  curses  in  the  Thebais,  Aeschylus  kept  only  the  first  and 
milder  one  (Robert,  p.  264  ff .) ;  this  may  argue  a  curtailment  of 
his  life,  but  there  is  no  evidence  as  to  when  or  where  he  died. 

Now  if  we  examine  the  passages  in  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus 
bearing  on  Oedipus'  wandering,  three  things  appear: 

1.  Oedipus'  banishment  is  the  consequence  of  the  sentence 
already  passed  on  the  unknown  murderer  of  Laius,  236  ff.;  816 
ff.;  1381  ff.  350-3.  This  sentence  grows  out  of  the  plague  theme, 
which,  as  we  saw,  was  Sophocles'  own  peculiar  way  of  initiating 
the  action. 

2.  It  is  also  a  projection  of  Oedipus'  exposure  in  youth,  1452^: 

ovfxds  Kidcupuiv  ovtos,  bv  pr\Tt\p  re  not 
ttclttip  t'  edeaOrjv  ^oovtl  nvptov  tol^ov, 
IV  e£  tKtivwv,  o'i  p,'  airuiWvTrjv  davo). 


49 

3.  Further  it  is  a  fulfilment  of  part  of  the  purpose  with  which 
Oedipus  was  incarcerated  in  the  Thebais  and  Phoenissae,  1430  f. : 

fii\pov  fit  yfjs  «k  TT\ob'  baov  raxt-crQ' ,  6irov 
dvqTdv  <f>avov pat  (irjotvos  irpoo-qyopos. 

Thus  there  is  no  mention  after  the  anagnorisis  of  beggary  in 
populated  Hellas.  Before  that,  the  only  mention  made  is  in  455 
tttcoxos  avrl  ir\ovaiov,  where  the  former  word  is  chiefly  for  con- 
trast to  the  latter.  Cf.  1451  ea  p,e  vaieiv  optoiv.  Cf.  248  kclkov 
nanus  viv  dfiopov  kuTplxpciL  (ttov,  and  Kvpiov  Tcicpov  above,  of  Cithaeron. 
In  fact,  the  exile,  as  implied  in  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  means  a 
desolate  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  ending  inevitably  in  a 
lonely  death  within  a  few  days.     Compare  Ant.  50-1. 

.    .    .    iraTrjp 
<hs  v<2v  airexdys  8v(Tk\€7]s  t*  airaiXtro, 
irpbs  a.VTO<p<j)puv  ap.ir\a.KrifiaTWV,  5i7rXas 
oxptLs  dpa£as  avrbs  avrovpyui  xtp'L- 

This  version  would  fit  neither  into  any  cult  story  nor  into  any 
consecutive  treatment  of  the  whole  saga,  of  which  we  have 
evidence.  Therefore  the  probability  is  that  Sophocles  invented 
it.  Thus  while  Oedipus  may  have  been  represented,  before  this 
play,  as  a  blind  wanderer,  there  is  no  solid  evidence  for  it  and  the 
theme  in  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus  is  developed  purely  out  of  the 
play  itself.  The  bearing  on  suspense  is  obvious.  At  the  outset 
our  minds  are  directed  to  the  coming  fate  of  Oedipus  by  a 
new  motive,  viz.,  the  anonymous  condemnation  to  exile  of  the 
murderer.  Teiresias  fixes  this  on  the  king.  Cithaeron  is  men- 
tioned first  in  a  vague  suggestion,  after  the  manner  of  Aeschylus 
(421).  Thus  a  suspense  of  real  uncertainty  is  kept  up  over  the 
anagnorisis  and  angelia.  We  wonder  how,  after  the  blinding, 
this  banishment  sentence  can  be  carried  out,  until  we  discover 
(1451  ff.)  that  Oedipus  intends  to  visit  it  on  himself  strictly  and 
literally;  of  its  full  hideousness  he  only  leaves  us  to  imagine — 

ov  yap  av  irore 
dvrfaKoiv  k<j6>Qr)v,  fxi]  'vl  to;  8eii>u}  kclkw. 

Creon's  scruple  in  1518  roD  Otov  p.'  airtTs  66<nv,  does  not  weigh 
against  Teiresias'  prophecy. 

The  best  comment  on  this  exodus  is  0.  C,  431  ff.,  765  ff., 
from  which  it  appears  that  Oedipus  is  indeed  sent  into  banish- 

4 


50 

ment  after  the  anagnorisis,  but  not  immediately;  that  is,  not  in 
the  mood  in  which  he  was  exhibited  to  us  when 

rjBiaTOU  8e  p.01 
to  na.Tda.veiv  y)v  nal  to  XevaOfjvai  weTpois, 

and  when  death  would  have  been  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
his  departure.  What  is  almost  certainly  a  criticism  of  the 
exodus  of  the  Oedipus  Tyr annus  appears  in  Eur.  Phoen.  1620  f., 

t'l  fi'  6.p8i]v  w5'  aironTeiveis,  Kpeov  ; 
awoKTeveis  yap,  el  jue  777s  e£co  jSaXets. 

Euripides  finds  his  way  out  of  the  difficulty  here  by  inventing 
Antigone's  part  as  that  of  guide  and  help  in  place  of  Iocaste — 
a  ir68a  obv  tv4>\6ttovv  OepaTev/xaaLv  aiev  tfioxOeu  (Phoen.  1549). 
Similarly  for  Euripides'  Oedipus  Robert  makes  out  a  strong 
probability  that  Iocaste  there  followed  him  into  exile  (p.  314  ff.). 
But  Antigone  has  not  yet  announced  her  intention  (1679)  of  going 
with  her  father  when  Phoen.  1620-1  are  spoken,  so  that  the  words 
of  those  lines  have  their  full  force.  The  passages  quoted  in  the 
Oedipus  Cohneus  as  well  as  the  introduction  of  Antigone  and 
Ismene  as  caring  for  and  accompanying  Oedipus  show  that 
Sophocles  accepted  this  criticism. 

In  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus  the  suspense  regarding  the  fate  of 
Oedipus  naturally  falls  between  three  lines:  imprisonment,  exile, 
or  suicide;  and  exile  is  the  least  obvious  of  the  three.  The  issue 
is  quite  uncertain,  and  the  actual  conclusion  develops  by  suc- 
cessive hints,  none  of  them  very  obvious,  out  of  the  action  itself. 
The  suspense  is  acute  on  this  point  during  the  entire  play  and  is 
admirably  sustained  by  vague  hints,  not  by  any  clear  plan  or 
prediction. 


2.  Seven  against  Thebes. 

The  story  of  an  attack  on  Thebes  instigated  by  Polyneices  and 
led  by  Adrastus  was  handled  in  the  Thebais  and  alluded  to  in  II. 
IV,  365  ff.  and  V,  800  ff.,  ending  in  the  defeat  of  the  attackers 
and  the  death  of  most  of  their  champions  (Theb.,  fr.  4,  5,  7 
Evelyn- White).  Oedipus  condemned  his  sons  to  death  at  each 
other's  hands  in  a  curse  (fr.  3),  which  was  certainly  fulfilled. 
There  is  thus  no  novelty  as  regards  essentials  in  the  Aeschylean 
play.     A  few  incidents  may  be  noted: 


51 

a)  Form  of  the  curse.     Theb.  fr.  3 — 

evKTO  Ad  ^acn\rJL  nai  dXXots  aBavaToiai 
Xtpviv  vtt'  aXK-qXoov  naTafi-qntvai  "Ai5os  etcrw. 

Robert  (p.  264  ff.)  believes  that  Aeschylus  suppressed,  in  the 
preceding  plays  of  the  Theban  triology,  this  second  and  grimmer 
form  of  the  curse,  keeping  only  the  first,  ibid.  fr.  2. 

cos  ov  ol  irarput.'  ev  rjdeiy  4>l\6tt]tl 

60.000.^7' ,  a/icfroTepoicn  5'aei  ir6\ep.oi  re  /zdxcu  re    .    .    . 

cf.  Sept.  785  ff. 

t€Kvols  5'  aypias 

6<f>rJK€l>   tTTlKOTOVS    TpO(j)OLS, 

cuat,  TrinpoyXuaaovs  apas, 
/ecu  acf>e  aibapovofico 
5td  xePL  iroTt  \ax*i-v 

KTY]/j.aTa, 

and  cites  Eteocles'  words  in  going  out  to  battle,  which  clearly 
indicate  that  the  issue  of  the  duel  was  in  doubt,  to  him  at  least; 
cf.  69  ff.,  659  ff.,  683  ff.  This  is  thoroughly  in  the  manner  of  the 
Oresteia  and  would  make  a  much  better  play,  for  it  introduces  an 
element  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  outcome  of  the  brother-duel  and 
at  the  same  time  makes  the  play  more  impressive  ethically  by 
emphasizing  human  motive  at  each  step.  At  best,  however,  it 
is  only  an  attractive  possibility.  Robert  has  to  explain  away 
(pp.  266-7)  the  lines  689-91 

eirei  to  irpay/j.a  napr'  eiriaTrepxti-  Oeos, 
lto)  kclt'  ovpov  KVfia  Kookvtov  \axbv 
4>otj3cjj  arvyqdev  irav  to  Aatov  yevos, 
and  819-20 

eijoucu  5'  771/  XafiuicTLv  tv  racpfj  x®bva 
irarpos  /car'  evxo-s  dvairorpovs  4>opovp.evot.. 

The  first  line  sounds  like  an  echo  of  the  text  of  an  actual  curse; 
cf.  0.  C.  789-90. 

b)  The  pairing  of  the  combatants.  The  exact  pairing  of 
champion  with  champion  was  introduced  by  Aeschylus  (Robert, 
p.  244  ff.;  cf.  the  story  of  Tydeus,  p.  130  ff.),  obviously  f<>  lead  up 
to  the  announcement  of  the  duel  between  the  brothers.  It  was 
the  natural  mechanical  means  to  let  1  his  lie  known  to  the  audience 
before  the  battle.     Otherwise  the  brothers  would  only  quietly 


52 

seek  each  other  out  in  the  melee  and  we  should  know  nothing  till 
after  the  event.  Note  the  shift  of  Polyneices  from  fourth  place, 
which  he  had  in  the  row  of  statues  dedicated  at  Delphi  by  the 
Argives  after  the  battle  of  Oenoe  (Paus.  x  10,  3),  to  the  dramatic 
place  of  honor,  namely  the  last.  Robert  discusses  this  list  on  p. 
237  ff.  and  p.  244,  and  gives  what  he  believes  to  be  the  true  list 
for  the  Thebais.  They  do  not  differ  materially  so  far  as  Poly- 
neices is  concerned.  In  Robert's  list  he  is  placed  fifth.  In  the 
statues  of  the  Epigoni  at  Argos  (Paus.  ii  20,  7)  the  sons  of  Poly- 
neices come  last.  These  statues  are  undated;  Pausanias  says  in 
a  parenthesis  "for  the  Argives  followed  Aeschylus'  poetry,"  but 
the  list  given  is  not  that  of  Aeschylus'  Seven. 

c)  587-9.  Amphiaraus  predicts  his  own  death.  A  different 
version  appears  in  Pindar  N.  ix,  16  ff.  The  sons  of  Talaus  lead 
an  army  against  Thebes.  Zeus  tried  to  deter  them  by  an  ill- 
omened  thunderbolt  as  they  were  setting  out.  All  the  heroes 
were  killed;  Amphiaraus  was  saved  from  death  at  the  hands  of 
Periclymenus  by  being  swallowed  up  in  the  earth;  but  there  is  no 
mention  of  his  having  predicted  his  own  death.  In  Od.  VI  13, 
Amphiaraus  is  a  prophet.  In  Od.  XI,  326-7;  XV,  246-7  allusion 
is  made  to  the  story  of  Eriphyle,  who  was  bribed  into  betraying 
her  husband  (cf.  schol.  ad  loc;  Apollod.  iii  6,  2,  4;  Diodor.  iv  65, 
6).  It  is  likely  enough  that  the  story  of  Amphiaraus'  prediction 
of  his  own  death  was  not  part  of  the  Odyssey1  version,  although 
there  is  no  reference  to  it  that  I  can  find  earlier  than  our  plaj^. 
Eriphyle  in  the  act  of  being  bribed  by  Polyneices  appears  on  a 
vase  (Robert,  p.  209).  On  the  Cypselus  chest  (Paus.  v  17,  7) 
she  appears  with  the  necklace,  at  the  departure  of  Amphiaraus, 
and  a  similar  scene  is  on  an  archaic  vase  reproduced  in  Roscher 
s.v.  Amphiaraus.  Of  the  other  Argive  heroes,  Tydeus  was 
familiar  from  II.  IV,  365  and  VII,  800.  The  exact  names  of  the 
seven  in  the  Thebais  are  uncertain,  but  the  more  individualized, 
Tydeus,  Capaneus,  Amphiaraus,  Polyneices,  were  certainly  there, 
and  their  boasts  and  appearance  might  suggest  to  the  audience 
their  exploits  and  fate  in  the  last  battle.  But  for  all  this,  Aeschy- 
lus is  our  earliest  source.  Robert  believes  that  the  series  of  Etrus- 
can urns  (p.  228  ff.)  represents  a  tradition  that  can  be  traced 

1  Hes.  Cat.  fr.  99  Evelyn-White  is  too  fragmentary  to  be  certain  evidence, 
though  it  seems  to  contain  this  story. 


53 

indirectly  to  the  Thebais,  but  this  is  too  uncertain  to  be  of  use 
to  us. 

For  the  spurious  closing  scene  of  this  play,  see  Robert ,  p.  \\~~)  IT. 

The  results  from  this  play  are  not  satisfactory.  The  only 
mythological  suspense  that  could  arise  would  concern:  a)  the 
fate  of  the  city  which,  as  all  stories  agreed  and  everyone  knew, 
was  saved;  b)  the  fate  of  Eteocles  and  Polyneices.  If  Aeschylus 
disregarded  earlier  in  the  trilogy  the  full  curse-form  of  the  Thebais 
and  made  Oedipus  pray  only  that  his  sons  might  divide  their 
inheritance  by  the  sword,  not  that  they  kill  each  other;  also  if  a 
story  was  current,  independent  of  the  Thebais,  in  which  they 
survived  this  battle,  then  considerable  suspense  might  arise  over 
this  issue.  But  we  cannot  even  hazard  a  guess  on  either  of  these 
points.  There  can  hardly  have  been  much  intrinsic  interest  or 
suspense  over  the  other  pairs  of  combatants;  their  function  is  to 
lead  up  to  the  brother-duel,  making  this  battle  dignified  and 
noble  as  well  as  terrible.  To  allow  the  brothers  to  seek  each 
other  out  in  the  press  and  glut  their  mutual  hatred  with  common 
disregard  of  the  common  weal  would  have  offended  Aeschylus' 
sense  of  order. 

Hence  the  only  means  of  suspense  we  can  be  sure  of  here  is  the 
development  of  the  anticipation  of  a  certain  end. 


3.  Phoenissae. 

In  this  curious  play  nearly  all  the  elements  of  the  Theban  saga 
are  introduced  in  one  form  or  another,  and  we  may  discuss  briefly 
each  one  in  so  far  as  it  contributes  to  the  general  suspense. 

a)  Iocaste.  By  making  her  present  at  the  attack  of  the  Seven, 
Euripides  goes  back  over  Sophocles  and  Aeschylus  to  the  Thebais.1 
Her  inclusion,  though  justifiable  dramatically,  was  partly 
motivated  by  Euripides'  desire  to  present  every  important  per- 
sonage in  the  saga  that  could  possibly  be  dragged  into  a  single 
play;  the  same  is  true  of  Oedipus  and  Polyneices.  Iocaste's 
usefulness  appears  throughout:  1)  She  is  the  obvious  person  to 
speak  the  prologue,  having  played  a  leading  part  in  all  the  events 
since  the  exposure  of  Oedipus;  2)  she  is  also  the  most  convincing 
link  possible  between  the  two  brothers  if  they  are  to  be  brought 

1  Cf.  painting  of  Onasias  ap.  Pans,  ix  4,  2.     See  Robert,  p.  L80 


54 

together.  Note  452-68,  528-85,  her  speeches  to  Eteocles  and 
Polyneices.  In  559  ff.  she  states  well  the  futility  of  their  joining 
battle,  whatever  the  issue.  Note  also  that  in  469  ff.  Polyneices' 
speech  follows  on  his  mother's;  his  demands  are  just  and  mod- 
erate (484-91),  based  on  the  former  arrangement  of  alternating 
kingship1  (473-80;  69-76),  which  appears  here  for  the  first  time. 
In  putting  Polyneices  in  the  right,  Euripides  follows  Pherecydes 
and  probably  the  Thebais,  which  was  written  from  the  Argive 
point  of  view  (Powell,  Intro,  to  Phoenissae,  p.  61).  Thus  by 
introducing  Iocaste  and  justifying  Polyneices,  Euripides  fixes 
our  sympathies  and  creates  a  livelier  suspense  as  to  the  outcome 
of  the  meeting.  Eteocles  has  to  take  refuge  in  sophistry  (504- 
10)  and  pure  self-will  (510-20),  so  that  the  story  may  take  its 
course;  3)  there  is  a  second  attempt  by  Iocaste,  probably  quite 
new  in  this  play,  to  prevent  the  conflict  of  the  brothers  at  the 
last  moment;  to  this  end  the  angelia  is  made  more  elaborate  and 
the  proceedings  divided  into  three  stages,  so  as  to  be  quite  under- 
standable. The  third  stage  is  the  truce  initiated  by  Eteocles' 
proclamation  from  the  tower  (1223  ff.),  under  cover  of  which 
Iocaste  rushes  out  with  Antigone  (1264-82).  Thus  the  suspense 
of  the  second  angelia  (1339,  1349)  is  highly  complicated.  Not 
only  the  success  or  failure  of  Iocaste's  errand  but  her  actual  fate 
is  clearly  a  question  after  1282.  Quite  conceivably  her  death 
followed  here  in  the  Thebais  (see  Robert,  p.  415),  but  whether  or 
not  the  audience  had  this  or  another  lead  as  to  her  fate  we  cannot 
say. 

b)  Form  of  the  curse.     As  in  the  Septem  only  the  first  of  the 
two  Thebais  curses  is  kept  (67-8), 

apas  dparcu  waiaiv  avoa  lut ar as 
Bt)kt&  atdrjpu}  5ojp,a  dLaXax&v  rode. 
So,  except  for  the  compulsion  of  the  saga,  the  conclusion  is  not 
foregone.     On  the  other  hand,  more  is  made  of  the  abiding  effect 
of  the  original  oracle  to  Laius  than  in  the  Septem  (19-20), 

el  yap  Tenvcoaeis  xcu5',  aTOKrevei  a'  6  4>vs, 

Kal  iras  ads  olkos  firjaeTaL  dl  aiparos. 
To  this  clearly  refers  624  epperio  ■wpbwas  56/xos,  which  is  an  answer 
to  Iocaste's  irarpos  oh  (frev^ead'  'Epivvs;     Not  only  the  father's  curse, 

1  For  another  story  of  a  contract,  see  Hellanicus  ap.  schol.  Phoen.  71,  and 
Robert,  p.  271  with  note  41. 


55 

but  an  older  blight,  is  destroying  us,  a  blight  which  affects  the 
whole  family.  Note  the  suggestion  of  Iocaste's  suicide  and  also 
her  reference  to  Polyncices'  marriage  (341-3)  as 

aXaara  parpl  rade  Aatco  re  tQ>  Trakaiytvt'i, 
yapcov  (iraKTOv  arav. 

The  word  akaara  and  the  mention  of  Laius  show  that  more  is 
meant  than  that  "  a  foreign  wife  is  no  blessing".  Clearly  it  was 
art]  to  marry  at  all.  This  thought  is  pursued  in  the  antistrophe 
(801  ff.).  Would  that  Cithaeron  had  never  taken  up  Oedipus! 
—814  ff. 

ov  yap  o  /jlti  Kakbv  ovttot'  e<t>v  tcaXov, 

01)8'    OL   /JLTj    VOp.ljJ.OL 

7ratdes  /xarpi  /\6xtvp,a,  plaapa  irarpds. 
A  curse  lay  on  the  boys  from  the  manner  of  their  birth,  from 
which  ill  was  bound  to  come; — 867-9 

vooti  yap  r)5e  yrj  iraXai,  Kpeov, 
e£  ov  'TtKvcoOr]  Aaios  fiia  deoou, 
Tocriv  t'  e<f)vo~e  prjrpl  pekeov  QibLirovv. 
Yet,  though  the  explicit  death-curse  is  omitted,  there  is  no  doubl 
as  to  the  coming  death  of  the  brothers.  This  is  settled  by  Teire- 
sias  (880).  This  theme  appears  in  the  Septem,  but  too  late  to 
affect  suspense  (844,  902  ff. ;  cf.  748  dvq.aKovra  yewas  arep  aw^tLv 
■koKlv,  the  counterpart  of  Phoen.  20-1).  In  the  Oedipus  Tyran- 
nies the  oracle  states  simply  that  any  son  Laius  begets  will  kill 
him  (713-4,  1176),  and  this  was  undoubtedly  the  original  form 
of  the  prediction  when  the  story  of  Laius  and  Oedipus  was 
still  personal  and  independent  of  the  wars  with  Argos  and  the 
Minyae.  (See  Robert,  p.  62,  66-7,  119  ff.)  Here,  in  an  unavoida- 
ble issue,  suspense  is  produced,  not  by  trying  to  bring  up  alterna- 
tives, but  by  alluding  constantly  to  the  end  which  everyone  knows 
is  coming,  and  thus  inducing  a  mood  of  nervous  expectation. 
This  need  brings  about  the  extension  of  the  prophecy  uttered  to 
Laius  over  the  fortunes  of  the  whole  house  until  the  family  is 
extinct. 

c)  Menoeceus.  Robert  (p.  416)  following  Wilamowitz  (De 
Eur.  Heraclidis;  Pr.  Greifswald,  1882)  believes  this  episode  to  be 
a  free  invention  of  Euripides  (so  also  Powell,  Introduction  t<> 
Phoenissae,  p.  82,  and  Weeklein  quoted  there).  His  argument 
is  "die  dramatische  Okonomie  der  Phoinisscn    .    .    .   allein  den 


56 

Schliisscl  fur  diese  Erfindung  gibt",  which  amounts  to  saying 
that  the  episode  as  it  appears  in  the  play  is  decently  motivated. 
The  reference  to  a  grave  and  legend  of  Menoeceus  in  Pausanias1 
(ix  25,  1),  which  diverges  from  Euripides,  and  the  dance 
Mej/oiKecos  d7rd>\eia  in  Luc.  de  Salt.  43  (surely  a  strange  by-product 
of  literature!  Cf.  Hdt.  v,  67),  constitute  a  certain  presumption 
in  favor  of  an  independent  legend. 

The  incident,  however,  as  critics  agree,  is  appropriate  and 
effective.  It  is  introduced  (867-9)  as  a  means  to  do  away  with 
the  curse  on  the  land  due  to  Laius'  disobedience  and  the  resulting 
abominations.     He  goes  on: 

880  e77i>s  8e  davaros  avrox^-P  avrois,  Kpkop. 

884  ah  t',  Si  TaXaiva,  avynaTaaKairTfl  ttoXl, 

ei  jii]  \6yotai  rots  kfiois  ris  ireiaeTai. 
Then  the  halt  (S91).  As  in  Oedipus  Tyr annus  he  whets  our 
curiosity  by  refusing  to  speak.  The  suspense  here  works  back- 
wards in  a  curious  way.  We  know  the  city  was  saved,  and  here 
Teiresias  makes  this  event  depend  on  some  intermediate  step 
which  his  reticence  shows  to  be  disagreeable, — 
892  Triupbv  re  roiai  rr\v  tvxvv  K€KTr]fxkvoLs. 

In  905-7  he  asks  that  Menoeceus  be  removed.  The  story  was  too 
obscure  to  be  known  to  many  of  the  audience,  and  our  curiosity 
is  not  satisfied  till  913  o-#d£cu  Mepomka.  Objective  suspense  is 
now  over,  all  around,  and  interest  shifts  to  the  means  and  details 
of  accomplishment.  The  delay  is  complicated  by  Creon's  appeal 
to  Teiresias  919-29,  followed  by  the  reason  for  the  sacrifice,  931-59 
— Ares  and  Ge  must  be  satisfied  by  the  human  blood  of  a  Cad- 
meian.  These  details  are  clear,  and  in  themselves  not  relevant 
to  the  story;  very  likely  the  legend  was  originally  connected 
with  some  other  early  war. 

d)  Polyneices.  He  appears  in  person  in  order:  1)  to  give  his 
side  of  the  exposition,  which  includes  an  intimate  statement  of 
his  feeling  and  point  of  view  389  ff . ;  2)  to  make  a  reconciliation 
seem  possible  for  a  while;  3)  to  give  the  contrast  of  character 

1  Delphi,  not  Teiresias,  is  responsible  for  the  sacrifice  in  Pausanias.  Cf . 
Phoen.,  lines  852-7,  which  almost  certainly  show  that  the  "oracle"  in  the 
Erechtheus  to  sacrifice  the  maiden  proceeded  from  Teiresias.  How  else  could  he 
have  made  the  Cecropidae  victorious?  But  the  mythological  source,  which 
also  mentions  Euripides,  says  els  AeX^ow  lui>.  Lycurgus  schol.  Leoc.  98;  see 
Xauck  s.v.  Erechtheus.     Cf.  Stob.  39,  33;  Paradox.  219  Westermann. 


57 

between  himself,  his  mother,  and  his  brother.     The  introduction 

of  Polyneiccs  into  Thebes  here  is  doubtless  quite  new  wit  h  Kurip- 
ides.  The  suggestion  of  such  a  visit  lay  already  in  the  story  of 
Tydeus'  entry  into  Thebes: 

tous  5'  ap'  67r'  'Aacoircp  Xi7re  xaXKOxifwas    Axcuous, 

avrdp  6  fj.el\t.xov  p-vOov  4>epe  Ka!)p.tLoi.cni> 

Keta'  '    drdp  a\j/  airiwv  p.a\a  p.kpp.epa  prjaaTo  tpya  (II.  X,  287-9). 

For  the  relation  of  this  passage  to  the  Thebais  see  Robert,  p. 
186  ff. 

Like  Polyneiccs  in  the  Phoenissae,  Tydeus  brought  a  proposal 
for  an  agreement,  was  rejected,  and  on  his  return  p.a\a  nep/xepa 
Hrjcraro  (pya.  Cf.  Phoen.  625.  Pol.  cos  rax'  ovkW  alp.aTr\pbv  Tovp.6v 
apyriaei  £t0os.  There  is  no  trace  in  the  Phoenissae  of  the 
story  of  the  athletic  contest  between  Tydeus  and  the  young 
Thebans  (II.  IV,  806-7;  VII,  385-90).  But  Polyneices'  fear  of 
an  ambush  263-73,  361-6  seems  meant  to  suggest  the  passage  in 
II.  VII,  391-8.  Polyneices  fears  the  ambush  as  he  enters  the 
city;  Tydeus  fell  into  one  on  his  return,  presumably  outside  the 
walls.  Robert  (p.  193)  compares  the  story,  which  appears  only 
in  pictures,  of  Achilles,  Troilus,  and  Polyxena.  See  Roscher  iii 
2,  2723  ff.  But  in  the  Phoenissae  the  mention  of  an  ambush  at 
Polyneices'  departure  would  have  been  a  jarring  note  after  the 
subtle  psychological  interests  of  the  foregoing  scene,  and  the  play 
begins  at  a  stage  in  the  war  when  the  besieged  were  tightly  en- 
closed inside  the  citadel.  Cf.  the  first  part  of  the  angelia  1090- 
1186,  and  the  change  1190.  An  ambush  story  like  that  about 
Tydeus,  the  Doloneia,  or,  apparently,  that  about  Troilus  and 
Polyxena,  implies  a  state  of  open  warfare  in  which  the  besieged 
are  encamped  outside  their  gates.  The  Tydeus  story  would 
probably  not  occur  to  any  of  the  audience,  nor  did  it  occur  to 
anyone  that  Polyneices,  since  he  was  fated  to  fight  with  his 
brother,  would  fall  into  an  ambush.  He  is  brought  in  merely 
for  the  interest  in  the  moral  and  pathetic  side  of  his  relations  to 
his  mother  and  brother. 

e)  Burial  of  Polyneices.  The  command  to  leave  Polyneices 
unburied  is  put  in  the  mouth  of  Eteoclea  (774-7);  these  are  al- 
most his  last  words,  and  hence  emphatic  (cf.  Soph.  .1///.  515). 
The  suspense  about  this  carries  on  through  the  angelia.  where 
it  is  re-aroused  by  Polyneices'  dying  requesl  for  burial  I  1117  IT.). 


58 

Antigone  announces  her  decision  to  bury  her  brother  (1657),  and 
Creon  threatens  her  with  death  (1658).  The  suspense  as  to  this 
is  taken  up  into  the  quite  novel  theme  which  follows  (1679  ff.): 
Antigone  will  follow  her  father  into  exile.  She  actually  bullies 
Creon  into  agreeing  to  this  by  threatening  to  murder  her  bride- 
groom if  she  is  forced  to  marry  Creon's  son  (1673-5),  so  that  he 
is  only  too  glad  to  be  rid  of  her  (1682).  There  is  no  definite 
conclusion  of  the  burial  issue,  but  the  impression  we  carry  away 
is  that  Creon  is  cowed  by  1673-5  and  ready  to  let  her  out  of  the 
country  on  her  own  terms,  which  would  naturally  include  the 
burial.  The  point  Robert  raises  (p.  425),  that  the  prohibition  of 
Eteocles  only  refers  to  Theban  earth,  is  hence  different  from  the 
version  of  the  Antigone,  and,  further,  refers  to  the  casting  out  of 
the  bones  of  Phrynichus  in  412  B.C.  (Lycurgus  Leoc.  113),  is 
too  subtle  a  distinction  to  have  any  value  for  suspense.  Nor  is 
there  any  essential  difference  between  the  various  versions  of 
Creon's  proclamation,  which  is  the  definitive  thing: 
Ant.  26  ff.  tov  o'  a6\l(j:s  davbvra  Uo\vp€lkovs  v'tKvv 

aoTolai  4>aaiv  eKneKrjpvxda.1.  to  p.rj 

Tacf)cp  KaKvxj/aL  fj.r]8e  KoinvaaL  tlvo., 

eav  5'  anXavTOV,  aracfrop,  oioovols  y\vicvv 

drjaavpov. 
Ant.  203  ff.  tovtov  wokei  Trfi'  eKK€K7]pvKTai  tclcJ)co 

fxrjre  Krepi^eLv  p.r}re  KCOKvaai  tlvo. 

eav  5'  adairrov  nal  irpbs  oiwvcov  <5e/xas 

Kal  irpbs  Kvvdv  kdearop  aiKiaOevr'  idelp. 

Phoen.  1632  ff.    os  a.v  veupbv  tovo"  f\  KaTaaTetpccv  a\<2 

r)  yfj  koKvtttwv,  davarov  avTaWa^erai. 
The  source  of  this  incident  lies,  not  in  Phrynichus'  bones,  but  in 
the  Antigone  of  Sophocles.  As  to  the  fate  of  Antigone,  previous 
stories  gave  no  clear  lead,  as  the  matter  was  only  taken  up  into 
the  drama  by  Sophocles.  Whether  Euripides'  Antigone,  which 
flatly  contradicted  the  Sophoclean  issue,1  preceded  the  Phoenissae 
or  not,  we  do  not  know.  But  in  an  unfamiliar  story  like  this,  a 
dramatist  was  not  bound  by  the  arrangements  of  a  predecessor, 
and  Euripides  cuts  loose  from  both  his  own  and  the  Sophoclean 
Antigone  in  1673-8.  As  at  the  end  of  the  Oedipus  Coloneus,  her 
future  is  simply  left  uncertain.     This  part  of  the  play  is  so- 

1  See  Robert's  convincing  reconstruction,  p.  381  ff. 


59 

crowded  that  the  audience  probably  became  confused  from  1583 
on.  After  1588  and  1632-3  they  would  naturally  expect  to  end 
with  a  summary  of  the  Antigone  of  Sophocles.  Lines  L673  5 
shake  them  roughly  out  of  this  belief,  and  the  answer  comes  in 
1679,  with  her  resolve  to  follow  her  father  into  exile,  a  criticism 
of  Sophocles'  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  as  we  saw.  The  burial  issue  is 
then  dropped,  and  the  suspense  trails  off  rather  lamely. 

f)  The  future  of  Oedipus.  As  we  saw  above,  both  Euripides 
and  Sophocles  felt  that  in  any  dramatization  of  Oedipus'  history 
subsequent  to  the  blinding,  Oedipus  needed  some  companion. 
Here  Antigone  steps  into  the  place  of  her  mother  (1549)  as  his 
protector  (1679).  His  going  forth  is  made  necessary  by  the  fact 
that  Euripides  wishes  to  account  for  the  local  Colonus  legend 
(1707-9),  which  requires  that  he  go  forth  from  Thebes,  and  thus 
Antigone's  accompanying  him  is  a  corollary  of  that.  For  the 
sources  for  the  Colonus-story,  see  Robert,  p.  18  ff.,  and  for  his 
ingenious  theory  as  to  its  origin  see  p.  36  ff.  That  this  story  went 
beyond  a  legend  vaguely  associating  Oedipus  with  the  locality  is 
improbable,  for  it  appears  from  the  Oedipus  Coloneus  that  there 
was  no  visible  grave  or  shrine.  This  is  significant,  for  it  suggests 
that  the  close  of  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  implying  the  inevitable 
death  of  Oedipus,  had  been  noticed  and  discussed  in  cultivated 
circles.  Euripides  had  already  contradicted  this  by  keeping 
Oedipus  shut  up  in  Thebes  through  the  war.  Thus  1679  is  to 
show  that,  in  sending  Oedipus  into  exile,  Euripides  is  not  leaving 
him  to  the  fate  of  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus  even  at  this  time.  The 
Colonus  legend  might  naturally  occur  here  to  many  of  the  audi- 
ence, and  keep  up  suspense  till  it  was  mentioned. 

Thus  from  1679  on,  the  arrangements  which  close  the  play  and 
the  history  of  the  Labdacid  house  are  in  drama  quite  new.  They 
have  a  patriotic  interest  parallel  to  that  of  the  Eumenidcs,  as 
sketching  a  history  associating  Attica  with  the  final  reconciliation 
of  a  foreign  house  long  at  enmity  with  the  gods. 


4.  Oedipus  Coloneus. 

The  suggestion  for  this  play  lay  already  ;it  hand  in  the  Pi 
issae  (Robert,  p.  457)  1703  ff. 

vvv  xp7?0"MOs,  d)  7raT,  Ao£ioi'  Trepaiver  ai . 
1705  kv  reus  Wdrjuais  Kardavtiv  p.'a\<!oixtvov. 

1707  iepos  KoKccpos,  biciiad'  iinriov  9tov. 


60 

What  was  the  form  of  the  legend  that  lay  behind  this,  we  can- 
not tell.  Robert's  ingenious  theory  (see  Ch.  1  of  his  book)  that 
it  grew  out  of  an  apparition  to  one  of  the  soldiers  in  a  hypothetical 
battle  with  the  Thebans  in  506  B.C.,  an  identification  of  this 
with  Oedipus,  and  a  vaticinatio  post  eventum,  deserves  attention, 
but  there  are  many  missing  links  in  the  evidence.  However, 
most  of  what  is  vital  to  suspense  in  our  play  was  put  together  out 
of  the  elements  in  the  literary  saga,  or  invented  to  supplement  it. 

a)  The  oracle.  1)  Cf.  Phoen.  1703-7  above.  Sophocles  uses 
this  oracle  to  bind  together  the  varied  action  of  his  play.  The 
first  intimation  is  in  44-5;  he  knows  Colonus  by  the  presence  of 
a  shrine  to  the  Eumenides,  and  he  intends  to  stay.  He  wishes 
(70)  to  send  a  message  to  the  King,  and  states  the  meaning  of  the 
oracle  (88-95).  He  is  to  end  his  life  at  a  place  which  is  evidently, 
by  its  description,  the  one  where  he  now  is.  This  sets  the  main 
suspense  of  the  play  as  suspense  of  anticipation,  not  of  uncer- 
tainty. 

2)  Another  oracle  appears  in  1331-2: 

el  yap  tl  ■klctov  kariv  en  xPV(TTrIP'LUV> 
ols  av  crv  irpocrdri,  roLab'  ec/xxc/c'  elvai  Kparos. 
This,  curiously,  appears  first  in  the  scene  with  Polyneices  and 
causes  a  sham  suspense  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  event  of  the 
Theban  war,  until  it  is  clear  that  Oedipus  will  join  neither  side. 

3)  Also  409-11 

eorcu  7tot'  apa  tovto  Ka8p.elois  (3apos    .    .    . 

Trjs  arjs  vtt'  opyrjs,  cols  orav  ot&oiv  racpois. 
These  last  two  oracles  were  evidently  delivered  to  the  Thebans 
(possibly  also  the  first,  cf.  353-6),  and  made  known  to  Oedipus 
only  by  accident.  It  is  impossible  to  win  any  coherent  view  as  to 
the  occasions  of  these  pronouncements.  Oedipus  speaks  of  a 
body  of  oracles  delivered  about  him  (353-5)  and  spoken  at 
different  times;  in  87  they  appear  to  have  been  delivered  all  at 
once.  Of  the  three  oracles,  1)  was  taken  from  Phoen.  1703-5; 
2)  was  invented  for  this  play,  for  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
that  in  any  previous  story  Oedipus  was  even  potentially  an 
arbiter  in  the  quarrel  between  his  sons,  except  as  damning  both; 
and  3)  was  presumably  suggested  by  some  element  in  the  local 
legend  (cf.  the  oracle  in  schol.  to  0.  C.  57).  Thus  an  element  of 
patriotic  expectation   would   go  into  the  suspense  which  this 


61 

arouses.  Beside  this,  it  serves  to  motivate  the  scene  with  Creon, 
an  action,  that  is,  which  tends  against  Oedipus'  settlement  here 
and  thus  makes  a  play.  If  we  could  suppose  that  Creon  knew 
about  the  oracle  (1332-3),  it  would  serve  as  a  further  explanal  ion 
of  his  conduct.  But  Ismene  has  the  latest  information  from 
Thebes  (387-90),  and  1332-3  are  doubtless  meant  for  a  separate 
oracle  to  Polyneices  and  his  allies.  It  quickens  suspense  at  the 
close  of  this  scene  and  adds  dignity  to  the  conclusion,  because  it 
makes  this  an  alternative  to  Oedipus'  returning  to  Thebes  and 
his  home  with  full  honors  (1342).  This  causes  a  real  suspense 
of  uncertainty  till  1100,  when  the  children  are  rescued  and  it  is 
clear  that  Oedipus  will  not  go  to  Thebes.  This  oracle  makes  one 
think  for  a  while  that  he  will  go,  because  we  know  the  city  was 
saved.  But  the  oracle  says  "hard  on  the  Cad?neians",  not  the 
Thebans  in  general,  and  this  must  be  taken  as  referring  to  the 
reigning  house.  Robert  (p.  469  ff.)  believes  the  Polyneices  scene 
to  be  an  addition  unessential  to,  and  here  contradicting,  the  rest 
of  the  play.  But  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  two  oracles 
are  incompatible.     Cf.  422-3. 

ev  5'  kfiol  tcXos 
ainolv  y'tvoiro  rrjade  rrjs  naws  irkpi. 
1332-3  seem  like  a  fulfilment  of  this.     Did  Sophocles  think  of 
that  oracle  as  delivered  after  Oedipus  had  uttered  those  very 
words? 

b)  Oracle  2),  as  we  saw,  brought  Oedipus  into  connection  with 
the  expedition  of  the  Seven  and  so,  conformably,  the  impending 
battle,  which  is  perfectly  familiar  to  the  audience,  is  kept  in  the 
back  of  their  minds.  Preparations  are  described  in  365-81.  and 
continued  in  1301-45.  The  progress  extends  to  the  action  (13 1  I 
2);  the  invaders  are  already  camped  before  Thebes.  Parallel 
to  this  runs  the  development  of  the  curse-theme:  1)  421-54; 
neither  son  will  ever  get  any  benefit  from  his  mother  city.  This 
is  changed  from  the  simple  curse  of  the  earlier  stories  to  a  state- 
ment of  something  which  Oedipus  knows  from  the  oracles  (452-4) ; 
hence  the  strife  is  fated.  2)  In  789  f.  in  answer  to  Creon,  ( tedipus 
says  that  both  sons  will  get  enough  Theban  land  to  die  in  (cf. 
Sept.  819  f.).  3)  From  1372  ff.  it  appears  thai  they  will  die  at 
each  other's  hands;  this  is  confirmed  by  1383-8.  This  last  pre- 
diction, made  directly  to  Polyneices'  face,  is  taken  from  the 
second  curse  of  the  Thebais  and  possibly  from  the  Aeschylean 


62 

trilogy.  But  the  disastrous  results  of  the  war  are  really  a  fore- 
gone conclusion  from  the  beginning,  and  thus  the  curse  is  not  the 
cause  of  it,  although  Polyneices,  less  documented  with  oracles, 
believes  it  so  to  be  (1432-4). 

The  curse  is  thus  in  its  form  similar  to  the  Thebais.  421-54 
corresponds  inexactly  to  fr.  2  Evelyn-White,  and  1372-88 
exactly  to  fr.  3.  Only,  the  curse  is  not  the  cause,  and  this  trait 
is  new.  The  actual  issue  of  the  fight  is  left  unconcluded  though 
certain,  and  we  are  reminded  of  it  once  before  the  end  (1769-70). 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  curse  theme,  and  the  suspense  of 
anticipation  it  involves,  run  along  independent  of  and  parallel 
to,  the  suspense  of  uncertainty  caused  by  the  oracle  in  409-11. 
They  are  confusing,  but  would  contradict  each  other  only  in 
case  Oedipus  went  to  Thebes. 

c)  Robert  (p.  8  ff.)  sees  in  389-407,  784-6  a  reference  to  the 
legend  and  location  of  the  original  grave  of  Oedipus  at  Eteonus. 
Thus  the  play  represents  the  conflict  between  two  local  legends. 
To  Sophocles'  mind  this  conflict  was  probably  present,  but  the 
fact  of  the  Eteonus  cult  was  hardly  well  known  to  his  audience, 
and  the  lines  hence  have  no  more  than  their  face  value.  The 
theme  of  a  Theban  embassy  trying  to  fetch  back  Oedipus  for  the 
sake  of  his  grave,  after  he  had  gone  on  his  wanderings,  is  unknown 
to  previous  literature  so  far  as  we  know  it.  The  determining 
factor  in  suspense  here  is  the  question  whether  Colonus  will  in 
fact  be  the  place  of  Oedipus'  death.  Once  Sophocles  has  raised 
this  issue,  we  are  keen  to  see  it  carried  through  and  the  Colonus 
story  justified. 

5.  Antigone. 

The  suggestion  of  this  play  seems  to  come  from  two  sources : 
a)  The  Eleusinian  story  (Hdt.  ix  27,  3;  Aesch.  Eleusinioi 
ap.  Plut.  Thes.  29:  See  Nauck.).  According  to  this  version, 
after  the  expedition  of  the  Seven,  the  Thebans  refused  burial  to 
their  dead  enemies,  but  the  Athenians  persuaded  or  compelled 
the  Thebans  to  allow  burial.  The  corpses  were  then  buried  at 
Eleusis  or  Eleutherae;  ra^al  8e  t&v  ttoXXcov  h  'EXevdepais  Selnvvv- 
tcu,  tQiv  8'  riyefjiovuv  irepl  'EXevalva,  Plutarch.  Polyneices  appears 
in  Eur.  Suppl.     His  name  is  mentioned  last,  and  by  Theseus1 

1  The  connection  of  this  passage  is  curious.     Does  it  mean  that  his  body  was 
not  there? 


63 

(928  ff.).  There  is  no  allusion  to  Antigone,  (iron  figures  in 
Eur.  Suppl.  through  the  mouth  of  his  herald.  But  there  was 
no  question  of  a  formal  forbidding  of  burial,  addressed  to  the 
the  Thebans,  who  might  be  presumed  to  stand  together  in  this 
matter.  There  was  no  Antigone  and  no  Haemon.  This  story 
contradicts  the  Thebais,  in  which  the  seven  heroes,  who  did  not 
include  Adrastus,  were  burned  in  greal  state  after  the  battle! 
(Pind.  N.  ix  24;  vi  15  ff.,  and  Asclcpiades  ad  loc.  in  schol.) 

b)  Robert  finds  traces  of  a  more  personal  story  than  this  in  t  he 
reference  to  Ion  of  Chios1  in  the  Salustian  hypothesis  to  the 
Antigone:  6  p.tv  yap  "Iwv  kv  tols  5i0updyu/3ois  KaraTprjadriuai  4>t]<tii> 
aiJL(f)OTfpas  (i.e.,  Antigone  and  Ismene)  ei>  t<2  Upu>  7-775  "Upas  viro 
Aaoda/jiavTos  tov  'EreoKXeous.  This  is  supposed  to  be  a  punishment 
for  something.  A  story  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  Callima- 
chus2  to  the  effect  that  Antigone  buried  Polyneices  by  dragging 
his  body  to  the  already  burning  pyre  of  his  brother.  The  diffi- 
culty lies  in  connecting  this  story  with  the  curious  event  in  Ion, 
and  precisely  here,  the  evidence  fails.  Robert  connects  the  two 
without  hesitation  and  finds  in  the  reference  to  the  temple  of  Hera 
in  Ion  a  trace  of  the  temple  legend  that  started  the  whole  story. 
If  that  is  the  case,  we  have  a  curious  phenomenon,  viz.,  two 
parallel  legends  appearing  in  literary  form  about  the  same  time, 
dealing  roughly  with  the  same  event  but  with  the  widest  diver- 
gence of  detail  and  consequences,  and  each  story  securing,  more- 
over, a  following  amongst  later  writers.  Nevertheless,  there  is 
much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this  theory.  The  incident  in  Ion  is 
otherwise  hard  to  motivate,  and  the  proposed  inclusion  of 
Ismene  in  Antigone's  punishment  (Robert,  p.  364  ff.)  seems  like 
an  echo  of  a  story  where  both  were  equally  guilty.  Cf.  Ant.  488 
ff.;  534  ff.;  576  ff.;  779  ff.  Robert  compares  also  Polyneices' 
appeal  to  both  his  sisters  (0.  C.  1407  ff.);  also  the  tomb  where 
Antigone  was  immured,  with  the  burned  temple  of  Sera.  Cf. 
the  Brazen  House  of  Pausanias  in  Sparta  (Thuc.  i  134).  The 
inevitable  conflation  of  a)  and  b)  appears  in  Apollod.  iii  7,  1. 

If  such  a  story  was  extant  before  Sophocles'  Antigone,  it  would 
create  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  disastrous  endii 
the  play.     But  it  would  give  no  lead  as  to  the  precise  event,  vie., 

1  See  Robert,  p.  362  ff.  for  discussion:  Inn's  literary  activity  a1  Athens  fall- 
between  B.C.  152  21. 

2  See  Robert,  vol.  ii,  p.  126,  n.  53  for  refs. 


64 

her  hanging  of  herself.  Note  also  that  the  suspense  is  kept  up 
without  any  general  recourse  to  foreknown  saga.  In  944  ff. 
Creon  has  shown  no  sign  of  relenting,  and  disaster  will  follow  in 
the  natural  course.  In  988,  that  certain  harbinger  of  evil, 
Teiresias,  appears  and  (1064  ff.)  proclaims  disaster:  Creon  will 
lose  someone  from  his  own  family.  Then  Creon  changes  his 
mind  (1095-1110).  But  now  we  know  from  Teiresias  that  the 
disaster  is  coming,  and  Creon's  change  of  heart  only  adds  to  the 
dramatic  irony,  but  causes  no  uncertainty.  This  sequence  is 
only  made  possible  by  the  fact  that  it  takes  Teiresias  till  1064-71 
to  make  Creon  see  what  we,  and  even  the  chorus,  saw  in  762-7. 

No  traces  of  the  romantic  story  of  Haemon,  nor  of  Eurydice,. 
appear  in  earlier  literature  so  far  as  we  can  trace  it.  Line  2 
Toiv  cur'  015'urov  kclk&p  is  a  general  reference  to  the  evils  connected 
with  the  birth  and  history  of  Oedipus,  and  this  theme  is  elaborated 
in  an  ode  (583  ff.),  but  it  finds  no  part  in  the  dialogue,  which  is 
vividly  human  and  bears  little  relation  to  anything  outside  itself. 

The  story  in  Ion  may  therefore  be  taken  as  creating  suspense 
of  anticipation  of  a  disaster,  while  the  precise  nature  of  the  dis- 
aster is  clearly  a  matter  of  doubt  owing  to  the  shift  of  chronology, 
by  which  Eteocles  is  already  buried.  This  is  the  same  method 
we  saw  in  the  Rhesus  and  Philoctetes. 


6.  Supplices. 

For  the  old  story,  which  is  probably  that  of  the  Thebais,  see 
Pind.  0.  vi  15  and  Asclepiades  ap.  schol.  ad  loc;  N.  ix  22  ff.  There 
is  here  no  question  of  the  Thebans  refusing  burial  to  their  dead 
enemies.  This  story  proceeded  from  Eleusis  or  Attica  (Hdt.  ix 
27).  Cf.  Aeschylus  and  Philochorus  ap.  Plut.  Thes.  29  (see 
Nauck2,  p.  18-9).  There  is  no  variant  in  its  general  course  or 
issue,  except  for  the  version  less  discreditable  to  themselves,  in- 
vented by  the  Thebans,  according  to  which  they  gave  up  the 
bodies  willingly  instead  of  under  compulsion  (Paus.  i  39,  2). 
There  is  no  earlier  reference  for  Euadne  as  daughter  of  Iphis  and 
wife  of  Capaneus;  hence  one  is  free  to  believe  that  her  self-sacri- 
fice was  quite  new  to  the  audience,  and  that  there  was  no  lead 
given  by  any  previous  story  as  to  what  she  would  do  when  she 
appeared  (990).     There  is  no  trace  of  a  self-sacrifice  story  other- 


65 

wise  in  the  legends  of  the  burial  of  the  seven  heroes.  The  fad 
that  she  is  a  sister  of  the  shadow-figure,  Eteoclus,  who  appears 
first  in  Sept.  457,  without  parentage,  and  is  here  given  a  father  by 
Euripides  (1036-7),  would  go  to  show  thai  she  is,  like  him,  only 
the  creature  of  a  dramatic  emergency.  Iphis  has  a  small  history 
of  his  own  in  later  authors  (see  Roscher  s.v.),  but  his  connection 
with  Eteoclus  seems  to  rest  on  this  play.  There  is  thus  suspense 
of  anticipation  regarding  the  burial  theme  from  the  beginning 
and  of  uncertainty  regarding  Euadne  from  980  to  1072. 


IV.  Athenian  Legends. 


1.  Medea. 

This  play  is  drawn  partly  from  an  Athenian,  partly  from  a 
Corinthian,  source.  How  much  of  the  story  existed  before 
Euripides  it  is  impossible  to  say,  for  there  is  not  one  single  trait 
of  his  play  beyond  the  localization  of  Iason  and  Medea  in  Corinth 
for  which  uncontested  earlier  evidence  exists.  Without  attempt- 
ing an  exhaustive  review  of  the  evidence,  we  may  try  to  reach  a 
point  of  view  regarding  each  important  incident. 

a)  Murder  of  the  children.  Did  anything  in  the  earlier  saga 
lead  the  audience  to  expect  this? 

1)  Pausanias,  ii  3,  10,  purporting  to  summarize  Eumelus,  a 
Corinthian  epic  poet  of  the  last  half  of  the  eighth  century,  tells 
us  that  Medea  hid  her  children  in  the  temple  of  Hera,  hoping  to 
make  them  immortal;  she  was  deceived  of  her  hope  and  left 
Corinth;  it  is  implied  that  her  children  died.  But  it  appears 
from  Paus.  ii  1,  1,  that  he  had  no  direct  knowledge  of  Eumelus, 
but  used  a  prose  history1  which  he  thought  was  by  Eumelus: 

Ei'yurjXos  ...  6s  kclI  to.  e-n-q  \eyerai  TOLtjaat,  (prjalu  kv  rjj  KopwdLq. 
avyy pa(f)fj,  el  drj  Eu/^Aou  ye  -q  <rvyypa<pr).  .  .  .  This  history  used 
Eumelus,  at  least  in  the  genealogies;  cf.  Paus.  ii  3,  10,  witli 
Eum.  fr.  2  K.  The  scholiast  to  Pind.  0.  xiii  74,  win.  had  a 
text  of  Eumelus,  supplements  this  story:  'etceX  (i.e.,  in  Corinth)  5t 
avTTJs  (Medea)  6  Zeus  -qpaadrj,  ovk  eireldeTO  8e  rj  M^Saa,  top  ttjs  'Ilpas 
eKK^ivovaa   x°^ov    Oib  nai   t)   "Ilpa   vireo-xeTO   aVTr}   adavaTOVs    Troirjaat. 

1  See  E.  G.  Wilisch,  Ucber  die  Fragmente  dea  Epikera  Eum*  los,  Leipzig,  l s7">. 


66 

tovs  ircudas.  airodavovTas  8e  tovtovs  Tip.wcn  KopLvdioi,  Kakovvres 
HL%of3ap(3apovs.  Much  is  lacking  for  a  complete  understanding  of 
what  happened,  e.g.,  why  Hera  went  back  on  her  promise,  but 
there  ought  to  be  no  doubt  that  these  two  passages  come  from 
the  same  source,  viz.,  Eumelus'  Corinthiaca.  (Cf.  the  Scholiast 
to  Ap.  Rh.,  i  146;  hi  1372,  who  also  had  a  text.)  Thus  we  have 
clear  earlier  evidence  for  a  story  of  an  involuntaiy  murder,  as 
Seeliger  rightly  observes  (Roscher  s.v.  Medea,  col.  2493).  This 
however  was  probably  not  connected  with  an  action  on  Iason's 
part  until  Euripides,  and  would  not  figure  in  suspense  until 
Medea  mentions  it  (792),  with  a  new  motivation.  This  issue 
would  then  be  certain,  though  the  murder  is  here  voluntary. 

2)  Medea,  in  lines  1378-83,  proposes  to  bury  her  children  in 
the  precinct  of  Hera  Akraia,  where  the  Corinthians  will  perform 
aefxpriv  eopriiv  /ecu  reXrj.  To  this  passage  may  be  traced  schol.  Med. 
1379  and  Zenodotus  i  27,  according  to  which  Medea  founded  the 
cult  of  Hera  Akraia.  Pausanias  saw  in  Corinth  (ii  3,  6)  the  graves 
of  Medea's  children,  at  which  propitiatory  offerings  had  been 
made  yearly  until  the  Roman  conquest :  ovk€tl  kneivai  KadecrrrjKacnv 
avrols  ai  dvaicu  irapa  tuiv  eTro'iKwv,  ovde  aironeLpovTaL  (jfyiaiv  ol  7rcu5es, 
ov8e  fxekaivav  (popovatv  kadrjra  Paus.,  ii,  3,  7.  With  these  offerings 
he  connects  a  legend  contradicting  the  Eumelus  story,  which  he 
tells  a  few  lines  further  on,  to  the  effect  that  the  Corinthians  had 
stoned  to  death  Medea's  children  in  revenge  for  the  murder  of 
Glauce.  Their  own  children  then  began  to  die,  until,  at  the  be- 
hest of  an  oracle,  they  established  the  sacrifices.  Parmeniscus 
(schol.  Med.  273)  and  Didymus  (schol.  Med.  273),  quoting  one 
Creophylus,  presumably  the  historian  of  Ephesus,  give  two 
variants  of  this: 


67 


Parm. 

rds  8e  Kopivdlas  ov  fiovXopepas 
virb  fiapftapov  Kal  (pappaKtbos 
yvpaiKos  apxtoOai,  avrrju  re  eirt- 
/3oiAePcrcu     Kal     to.     reKpa    avTrjs 


Creoph.  ap.  Did. 

ttji>  yap  N-nbetap  \eyti  5iarpi- 
flovaav  ep  KopivOco  top  apxoura 
Tore  ttjs  7r6Xews  Kpeopra  airoKTel- 
vo.1  4>app.aKois.      beiaaoav  be  tovs 


apeXelp,  eirra  pep  appepa,  tirra  be      <f)L\ovs    Kal   tovs    avyyepels   avrov, 


(pvyelp  eis  'Ad-qpas,  tovs  be  viovs, 
kirel  veojTepoL  ovres  ovk  rjbvpaPTo 
anokovdelv,  KaOielp  eirl  rbv  fiwpbp 
ttjs  d/cpaias  "Upas,  popiaacrap  top 
warepa  avrcjp  (ppoPTtelp  T7js 
aojTT]pias  avT&p.  tovs  be  KpeoPTOS 
oUelovs  airoKTeivavras  avrovs  6ia- 
bovvai  \byovs  otl  77  Mr/beta  ov 
pbpop  rbv  Kpeovra  dXXd  nai  tovs 
eavTrjs  iralbas  airknTeive. 


BrfKea.  ravra  be  biuiKopepa  Kara- 
4>vye?v  eis  to  ttjs  d/cpaias  "Upas 
lepbv  Kal  eirl  to  lepbv  KadiaaL, 
Kopivdiovs  be  avrdv  ovbe  ovtus 
airexto-dai.  dXX'  eirl  tov  /3copou 
ivavTa  ravra  airoacpa^ai.  Xotpou 
be  yevop.'evov  eis  tyjp  itoXlp  7roXXd 
(jdcpaTa  virb  ttjs  vbaov  bia^Qeip- 
eadaL,  pavTevopevois  be  avTols 
Xpycrpcobr)  a  at  top  Bebv  iKaaKeaOat 
to  ttjs  M-qbeias  TeKPoop  0.70s.  bdev 
KopipdioLs  pexpi-  tcjv  KatpCiv  twp 
Kad'  rjpas  Kad'  eKao~Tov  evtavTOv 
eiTTa  Kovpovs  Kal  eirTa  Kovpas  tup 
einaripoTaTOiP  apbpup  epairepiav- 
Ttfciv  tu  ttjs  Beds  Tepkvei,  Kal 
peTa  dvo~LU)p  IXacrKecrdaL  ttjp  eKeipcop 
prjpip  Kal  tt]v  81  eKelpovs  yepop'ep-qp 
ttjs  Beds  bpy-qp. 

In  the  schol.  to  Med.  10  Parmeniscus  is  credited  with  the  story 
that  Euripides  received  five  talents  for  shifting  the  blame  of  the 
murder  from  the  Corinthians  to  Medea. 

Clearly  the  same  base  underlies  Paus.  ii  3,  6  and  the  two  quota- 
tions in  the  scholium  to  Med.  273.  Of  these  versions,  thai  of 
Creophylus  motivates  the  murder  of  the  children  through  the 
murder  of  Creon  by  Medea;  that  of  Pausanias  with  the  murder 
of  Glauce.1  Both  these  incidents  are  themselves  unmotivated  in 
the  context  and  the  inference  is  that  they  were  borrowed  from 
Euripides.  The  story  of  Parmeniscus,  however,  shows  no  trace 
of  Euripidean  influence.  The  act  of  the  Corinthians  is  motivated 
simply  by  their  irritation  at  Medea,   whom  they  fell    to  be  B 

1  Her  name  is  not  in  the  text  of  Eur.  Med.  hut  is  associated  later  with 
Euripides'  story.     Schol.  Med.  19;  Hyg.  Fab.  25. 


68 

barbarian.  As  in  the  other  versions,  the  murder  is  connected 
closely  with  the  fact  of  the  cult  and  with  the  puzzling  detail  of 
the  seven  youths  and  the  seven  maidens.  On  this  ground  Seeliger 
(Rosch.  s.v.  Medea;  col.  2494)  says  that  the  seven  youths  and 
seven  maidens  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  children  of  Medea — 
quite  wrongly,  as  I  believe. 

The  key  to  these  passages  lies  in  the  end  of  the  schol.  Pind. 
0.  xiii  74  quoted  above,  airodavovTas  8e  tovtovs  Tip&ai  Koplvdtoi, 
KaKovvTts  /jLL&fiapfiapovs.  Here  the  sacrifices  appear  in  connection 
with  a  story  that  made  no  one  responsible  for  the  death  of  the 
children.  Now  the  word  nL%0f3a.pP6.povs  obviously  comes  from 
the  formulae  of  the  cult  itself.  Hence  the  word  may  be,  and 
very  likely  is,  older  than  any  story  we  have.  Thus  the  story 
in  Parmeniscus  appears  as  a  legend  composed  to  account  for 
a  particular  ceremony,  and  the  first  part  is  an  explanation  of 
the  cult- word.  It  is  not  likely  that  this  tale  arose  later  than  the 
Euripidean  play,  which  fixed  the  dominant  tradition  and  even 
took  the  cult  into  account.  Thus  we  are  left  with  the  conclusion 
that  the  two  stories:  1)  that  of  the  unwitting  murder;  and  2) 
that  of  a  murder  by  the  Corinthians,  both  preceded  Euripides. 
The  five-talent  story  is  thus  a  malicious  allusion  to  the  fact  that 
Euripides  swept  the  older  stories  out  of  currency.  That  either 
of  these  stories  was  known  to  many  of  the  audience  is  very  doubt- 
ful, and  therefore,  so  far  as  the  children  went,  Euripides  was  vir- 
tually working  new  material.  To  anyone,  however,  who  knew  the 
story  of  the  stoning,  792-3  would  have  a  new  significance.  The 
employment  of  the  children  in  the  murder  of  Creon's  daughter 
would  make  him  think  that  the  stoning-story  would  follow  as  a 
result  of  Creon's  anger.  Thus  Medea's  purpose  to  kill  them 
needs  to  be  expressed  here  to  forestall  the  expectation  of  this. 
This  purpose  was  not  likely  to  fall  through  unless  her  whole  plan 
failed,  and  the  audience  knew  from  the  Athenian  legend  that  it 
did  not  fail.  Hence  in  any  case  from  792  on  the  suspense  as  to 
the  fate  of  the  children  is  purely  that  of  anticipation. 

b)  The  murder  of  Creon  and  his  daughter.  There  is  nothing 
that  I  can  find  in  previous  stories  about  this,  nor  about  the 
second  marriage  of  Iason.  The  only  suggestions  of  a  clash  be- 
tween Iason  and  Medea  lie  in  the  feeling  of  the  Corinthians 
against  a  barbarian  woman  and  her  children,  which  might  easily 
be  carried  over  to  her  husband;  and  in  the  stories  of  her  going  to 


09 

Athens,  or  back  to  Asia.     The  suspense  as  to  the  marriage  and 

the  murder  is  developed  entirely  out  of  the  lines  of  I  he  play. 

c)  Medea  and  Athens.  That  a  previous  Legend  existed  con- 
necting Medea  with  Athens  we  can  hardly  doubt,  in  view  of  the 
unrelated  appearance  of  Aegeus  in  this  play,  criticized  in  Aj.  Poet. 
61  b  19;  cf.  54  b  1.  A  strong,  though  not  conclusive,  piece  of 
evidence  for  such  a  legend  is  Hdt.  vii  62,  1,  airiKofxhris  Mrj5«iT/s 
rfjs  KoAx^os  c£  ' 'AOrjvecov  es  tovs  'ApLovs.  For  the  details  of  this  we 
are  dependent  on  Euripides'  Aegeus.1  Wilamowitz  (Herm.  xv 
1880,  482)  believes  this  to  have  preceded  the  Medea;  certainly, 
if  that  was  true,  it  would  have  made  the  appearance  of  Aegeus 
in  Medea  seem  less  violent,  and  directed  our  minds  before  line 
663  to  this  conclusion;  but  there  is  no  evidence  for  this.  In 
any  case  the  existence  of  an  Athenian  legend  would  give  the 
audience  a  clue  to  Medea's  method  of  escape. 

Euripides'  play  is  throughout  one  of  character,  and  the  sus- 
pense as  to  particular  events  is  little  influenced  by  outside  stories 
except  in  so  far  as  they  allowed  a  presumption  that,  whatever 
else  happened,  Medea  herself  would  escape.  (For  the  play  of 
Neophron,  see  Christ,  Gr.  Littgesch.  i  357-8.  I  find  ii  impossible 
to  believe  that  the  fragments  of  this  work  antedated  the  Medea.) 


2.  Hippolytus. 

This  was  written  partly  as  an  apologia  (Arg.  Eur.  Hip.)  for  an 
earlier  play  on  the  same  subject,  and  hence  the  variations  of  the 
myth  that  affect  us  will  be  variations  from  the  earlier  version. 
It  seems  pretty  clear  that  in  the  earlier  play  Phaedra  made  her 
addresses  to  Hippolytus  directly.2  Phaedra  also  calls  upon  the 
moon  (Schol.  Theoc,  ii  10),  not  necessarily  in  magic  rites.  She 
also  blames  Theseus  for  his  previous  misdeeds  (Plut.,  De  and. 
poet,  p.  28  A).     Two  passages  in  Apollod.  Sabbait.,  p.  180, 

line  9  ff.,  <rx'i-o~ao-a.  tcls  tov  6a\ap.ov  dvpas  /cat  rds  ea07jras  enrapa^acra. 
Karexpevaaro   'linroXvTov  (5'ia.v,  and   line    24,   ytvop.kvov    5e    rod   epedros 

irepi4>ai>ovs  tavr-qv  avqpT-qae  (f?ai5pa,  are  referred  by  Wagner  with 
some  probability  to  this  play.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  going 

1  Fit.  ap.  Nauckj  cf.  schol.  Med.  167.  The  story  in  schol.  to  //.  XI,  711  is 
probably  an  hypothesis  of  the  Aegeus. 

2  Hyp.  Eur.  Hip.,  p.  5,  6.irprrch  nal  Karriyopias  l£un>  Ar.  Ran.  L043  o\V  ov 
fia  Ai  ov  <I>at5pas  kwolovv  wopvas.  Cf.  frr.  135-6  N.  Tins  trait  appears  also  in 
Seneca's  Phaedra. 


70 

too  far  to  suppose  that  Theseus  was  absent  in  the  underworld 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  play,  or  that  this  was  the  third 
member  in  a  trilogy  of  matter,  preceded  by  the  Aegeus  and 
Theseus  (Wilamowitz,  Inlr.  to  Hip.  1891). 

The  earlier  play  will  thus  have  been  coarser  in  its  lines.  (See 
A.  Kalkmann,  Quaestiones  Novae  de  Euripidis  Hippolyto,  p.  24  ff.) 
Phaedra  presumably  announces  her  intentions  when  she  addresses 
the  moon;  the  center  of  the  play  will  contain  her  attempt  to 
persuade  Hippolytus.  The  suspense  of  this  is  split  up  in  the 
extant  play:  198-352  Phaedra  declares  herself;  401-2  she  resolves 
to  die;  435  ff.  the  nurse  proposes  a  remedy  for  disease  (479); 
this  is  explained  in  491  and  meets  with  violent  opposition  from 
Phaedra;  in  524  ff.  we  are  uncertain  as  to  what  the  nurse  will  do; 
in  600  ff.  we  are  uncertain  whether  Hippolytus  will  be  won  over; 
in  680  the  suspense  reverts  to  Phaedra's  proposal  to  die.  (With 
401-2  cf.  599-600.)  There  is  no  suspense  springing  from  vari- 
ants, because  the  fundamental  data  of  the  love-story  were  con- 
stant and  came  down  from  the  cult-song  (1428-30).  For  the 
origin  of  this  and  the  cult  of  Hippolytus  at  Troezen  and  Athens, 
see  Wilamowitz,  Intr.  to  Hipp.,  p.  30  ff. 

There  is,  however,  an  important  variant  at  the  end  of  the  play 
in  lines  1462-6: 

kolvov  r65'  iixos  7ra<n  7ro\ircus 

TJhdtV    de\7TTCOS. 

iroKKdv  baupvwv  earai  tt'ltv\os  ' 
tcov  yap  ixeyahoiv  a^LOirevdets 
4>rjfxcu  fxaWov  Karexovcriv. 

Fortunately  Stobaeus  preserves  the  corresponding  bit  from  the 
Hippolytus  Veiled  (Fr.  446  N) : 

co  naxap,  olas  ekaxts  rip.as, 
'Itt6\v6'  rjpcos,  5td  aaxfrpoavvrjp ' 
ovirore  dvrjTOLS 

aperijs  aXKr]  5vvap,LS  pieLfav ' 
rj\de  yap  fj  irpoad'  rj  ^eroTTLadev 
rrjs  evaefiias  x^pts  ea6\r]. 

This  latter  must  refer  to  some  more  substantial  benefit  than  the 
hero-cult  promised  by  Artemis  in  11.  1423-30.  Cf.  Carmen 
Naupactium  Fr.  11  K.  'IttoKvtov  {avkcr-qcxev  6  'Ao-kA^os),  cbs  6 
ra  NaviranTLKa  avyypa\j/as  \kya.      Paus.  ii  27,  4,  ravrrjs  rrjs  ari]\y]s 


71 

t<2  tTnypaidfiaTi  (record  of  twenty  horses  dedicated  to  Asclepius 
by  Hippolytus  on  a  stele  in  the  precinct    of  Asclepius  a1    Epi- 

daUTUs)  dp-oXoyovvra  Xtyovaiv  'Apuueis  ws  reOvtcoTa  'IwkoXvtoi'  kit  rdv 
Qrjaews  apQ>v  auearrjcreu  'AcrKXrjirios.  A  version  which  fits  better  to 
1  he  end  of  a  play  and  docs  not  mention  Asclepius  is  Paus.  ii  32, 
1.  airodavetv  5e  avrov  ovu  WeXovai  avpeura  bird  t&v  'littvlcv  ovdi  tov 
racfrov  aTrocfMxivovGiv  eldores.  tov  5e  tv  ovpavu)  KaXoiiptvov  -qvloxov, 
tovtov  eivai  vop.i£ovo~t.v  tKtivov  \ttttoKvtov,  Tipriv  irapa  Oeoou  TavTT)v'ixovTa. 

Pausanias  does  not  make  it  clear  how  this  story  fitted  with  the 
grave  of  Hippolytus  near  his  precinct  at  Troezcn.  Scarcely  any- 
one will  doubt  that  this,  if  it  does  not  refer  to  the  end  of  the 
Hippolytus  Veiled,  at  least  refers  to  the  legend  there  preserved. 
Wilamowitz  (Intr.  to  Hipp.,  p.  43  ff.)  believes  that  Asclepius 
restored  Hippolytus  to  a  superhuman  life.  This,  however,  will 
be  a  Troezenian  cult  legend  and  probably  not  include  Asclepius. 
Asclepius,  if  he  appeared  at  all,  would  restore  only  to  life  on 
earth,  as  appears  in  the  Epidaurian  story  of  the  dedication  of 
twenty  horses.  It  is  curious,  however,  that  this  Epidaurian 
version  of  a  Troezenian  legend  should  turn  up  in  the  ^SaviraKTia. 
Cf.  Paus.  x  38,  11,  on  the  provenance  of  this  epic.  For  1  he  ( ransla- 
tion  to  stars,  cf.  Eur.  Or.  1636-7;  Hec.  1265-7;  also  the  Hyades 
and  Coronides  discussed  above  in  connection  with  Iph.  Aul. 

A  consequence  of  this  would  be  that  there  was  no  death-scene 
on  the  stage;  it  would  be  too  much  to  ask  of  an  audience  to  be- 
lieve that  a  visible  corpse  was  later  to  become  a  constellation. 
The  place  of  the  death-scene  would  be  taken  by  a  long  speech 
from  some  divinity. 

This  bears  on  our  play.  If  there  were  two  earlier  legends  of 
Hippolytus'  recovery,  one  of  which  was  certainly  known  to  the 
greater  part  of  the  audience  through  the  Hippolytus  Veiled,  the 
presumption  would  be  that  here  too  he  would  be  rescued  in  some 
miraculous  way,  at  the  last  moment.  This  accounts  for  the 
unusual  way  in  which  Artemis  behaves.  After  Artemis  bas  ex- 
plained the  situation  to  Theseus,  we  expect  I  ll.it  she  will  aniinlllirr 
Hippolytus'  translation  and  that  the  play  will  end.  Hut  instead 
she  explains  her  inability  to  interfere,  1328  34.  Then  Bippoly- 
tus  is  brought  in  dying,  and  the  converse  he  enjoys  with  Artemis 
is  a  faint  shadow  of  the  blessings  given  to  the  deified  Bippolytus 
of  the  old  Troezenian  story. 

Here  mythological  suspense  appears  at  its  highest,  because  it 


72 

sets  us  definitely  on  a  false  scent  from  the  moment  Hippolytus' 
disaster  is  announced. 


3.  Ion. 

There  is  an  indication  in  the  Ion  that  an  old  Attic  legend  was 
being  followed  in  the  details  as  to  localities,  11-3,  17;  but  in- 
formation as  to  the  sources  of  this  plot  is  entirely  lacking.  Of 
the  two  Sophoclean  plays  that  may  deal  with  this  theme,  the  Ion 
and  the  Creusa,  the  first  has  no  fragments,  and  those  of  the 
second  offer  nothing.  The  evidence  as  to  the  Ion-saga,  together 
with  an  attempt  to  account  for  the  elements  of  this  play,  is  well 
put  together  by  E.  Ermatinger,  Attische  Autochthonensage;  Thesis, 
Zurich  1897,  pp.  112-42. 

One  observation  should  be  made,  namely,  that  Ion  here  is  a 
young  man,  and  later  became  eponymous  hero  of  a  race  (Hdt.  v 
66;  vii  94;  viii  44;  Eur.  Ion  74-5).  Therefore  it  is  a  foregone 
conclusion  that  nothing  serious  can  happen  to  him,  even  if  both 
Creusa  and  Xuthus  go  to  the  ground.  In  an  Attic  legend,  this 
means  that  suspense  tends  from  971  to  discount  the  effectiveness 
of  Creusa's  plotting  and  go  beyond  it  to  its  recoil  on  herself. 


V.  Legends  of  Heracles. 


1.  Heracles. 

Here  as  in  the  case  of  the  Oedipus  plays,  the  groundwork  has 
been  laid  for  an  understanding  of  the  myth  (Wilamowitz,  Intro- 
duction to  Heracles) .  The  story  of  Heracles'  murder  of  his  chil- 
dren is,  according  to  Wilamowitz  (Intr.  I2  86-8),  in  the  Theban 
story  a  reason  for  his  later  absence  from  Thebes  and  his  associa- 
tion with  Argos,  which  could  not  be  done  away.  There  is  no 
allusion  in  the  Iliad  or  Odyssey  to  the  child-murder;  the  Cypria 
(Procl.)  mention  the  madness  of  Heracles,  presumably  this  event ; 
Stesichorus  and  Panyasis  (Paus.  ix  11)  dealt  with  the  event;  how, 
we  do  not  know;  Pausanias  (I.e.)  gives  the  legend  as  current  in 
his  own  day.  Heracles  killed  his  children  in  a  fit  of  madness  and 
was  about  to  kill  Amphitryon  when  Athena  appeared  (cf.  Eur. 
Her.  1001-9)  and  stunned  him  with  a  huge  stone.  Pherecydes 
(fr.  30)  relates  that  Heracles  threw  his  children  into  a  fire  (cf. 
Apollod.  2,  4,  12,  1),  and  an  illustration  of  this  appears  in  a  vase- 


73 

painting  by  Assteas  of  Paestum  in  Alexander's  time  I  Roscher  s.v. 
Megara,  for  picture;   Wilam.,   I.e.,   p.  85).     Pindar  /.  iv  G3-4 
diverges  from,  or,  as  Wilamowitz   thinks   (I.e.,  82-3)   directly 
polemicizes  against,  this  version  in  speaking  of 
Xa.\Koapap  oktu  davbvruv 
tovs  Meyapa  reKe  oi  Kpttovrls  viovs, 
without  saying  that  their  father  killed  them. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  evidence  for  an  earlier  handling. 

The  first  half  of  the  play  seems  a  pure  invention  by  Euripides. 
Lycus  is,  in  this  connection,  unparalleled  (lines  26-31;  Wilam., 
I.e.,  p.  112).  This  part  of  the  play  is  a  variation  of  the  suppliant- 
theme,  which  could  be  introduced  anywhere;  cf.  the  Andromache, 
which  is  similarly  padded  at  the  beginning.  Dieterich  (Pulcin- 
ella,  p.  9  ff.)  points  out  striking  parallels  between  the  structure 
of  Herac.  1-522  and  Andr.  1-543.  The  suppliant-theme  in 
extant  plays  implies  a  deliverer,1  and  thus  the  presumption  is 
that  someone,  obviously  Heracles,  will  appear.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  play  the  hero  is  in  Hades,  25  IvQtv  ovx  v&i-  ttoKlv.  This  is 
no  presumption  against  his  appearing,  because  it  is  said  22-3 
that  this  is  the  last  of  the  twelve  labors,  which  we  know  were 
completed.  Another  resurrection  was  handled  in  Soph.  Phaedra 
(frr.  624-5);  possibly  in  Eur.  Hipp.  Veiled. 

Lycus  orders  servants  to  build  a  pyre  to  burn  the  children, 
240-6.  This  is  clearly  a  reference  to  another  existing  story,  I  hat 
the  children  were  burned  by  Heracles  (cf.  Wilam.;  I.e.,  p.  85). 
Here  the  pyre  is  to  be  reasonably  built  of  firewood.  In  the 
Assteas  vase,  it  consists  of  household  furniture.  Hence  it  quick- 
ens suspense  to  bring  the  present  play  into  connection  with 
stories  of  the  madness  of  Heracles,  which  has  so  far  not  been 
mentioned. 

The  most  important  innovation  is  the  introduction  of  Theseus 
(Wilam.,  I.e.,  p.  109-12).  Suspense  is  perhaps  at  its  keenest  at 
the  end  of  the  scene  with  Amphitryon,  where  Heracles  is  con- 
templating suicide  (1146  ff.).  In  1151-2  he  ends  his  review  of 
possible  deaths  by  aapKa  ttju  inqpev  +  epTrp-qaas  irvpL  a  reference 
to  the  fire-death  on  Mt.  Oeta  which,  like  240  6,  quickens  sus- 
pense by  alignment  with  a  known  saga.  Theseus  one-;  not 
broach  his  suggestion  that  Heracles  go  to  At  hen-  until  L322  ff. 

1  Cf .  Aesch.  Suppl.,  where  tin-  deliverance  Lb  contra  licted  la  the  m  «ri  play. 


74 

That  this  suggestion  is  to  be  followed,  we  are  at  once  informed 
by  1328-9  Travraxov  8k  p.oi  xdovbs  \  Ttp.kvr\  bkhaarai.1  These  precincts 
existed  and  were  called  after  Heracles,  as  we  know.  If  their 
existence  is  made  conditional  on  Heracles'  going,  then  obviously 
he  will  have  to  go. 

The  end  of  Heracles'  life  is  thus  made  similar  to  that  of  Oedipus. 
That  there  was  no  legend  already  in  Attica  about  this  end  of 
Heracles,  no  one  would  be  so  rash  as  to  assert.  On  the  contrary, 
it  may  be  objected  that  Heracles  is  localized  in  no  particular 
spot.     1216-7: 

ovdels  <tkotos  yap  <£5'  exet  p.k\av  vkcfros, 
ocms  kclkoov  owv  (TVfjLcfropav  npv\J/ei.ev  av, 
and  1231-2: 

Up.     t£  8rJTa  jxov  upar'  apeKa\v\{/as  rj\Lu>; 

Qr].      t'l  6";   ov  (jLiaiveis  6vt]t6s  &v  to.  t&v  dewv, 

are  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  ideas  expressed  by  Creon  in  Oed- 
Tyr.  1424-8,  and  may  well  be  a  conscious  criticism  of  that  version 
of  the  Oedipus  legend  which  enclosed  the  blinded  old  man  in  the 
house. 

In  1406-8  Heracles'  desire  to  embrace  the  corpses  of  his  chil- 
dren, whom  he  has  murdered,  seems  a  transference  from  Oed.  Tyr. 
1521-2.  Cf.  Her.  1414  6  Kkeivbs  'Hpa/cXTjs,  with  Oed.  Tyr.  1524-5 
018'ltovs  68e  I  os  to.  n\tiv'  aivLyp-aT'  f?5tt,  and  Oed.  Tyr.  8  6  wacn 
nXeivos  Oldiirovs  naXovpievos.  Note  also  Her.  1402  8l8ov  8kpr\  or\v 
xetp',  b8r\yi]<j<s>  5'  kyu>.  There  is  no  specific  mention,  but  in  the 
exodus  of  the  Oed.  Tyr.  Oedipus  is  evidently  led  by  Creon  1515, 
1521.  On  the. whole,  the  exodus  of  the  Heracles  seems  written 
with  that  of  the  Oedipus  Tyrannus  in  mind;  note  the  broken 
lines  Her.  1418-2;  Oed.  Tyr.  1516-22.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
Euripides  had  already  heard  of  the  Colonus  story  of  Oedipus 
(Phoen.  1703  ff.)  and  invented  a  similar  one  for  Heracles.  The 
interest  in  the  embracing  of  the  children  is  pathetic  and  does 
not  stimulate  suspense.  But  the  parallel  to  the  final  fortunes 
of  Oedipus  suggests  that  this  is  an  imitation  of  the  Oedipus 
Tyrannus  exodus,  with  an  echo  of  the  Colonus  story.  But  the 
Colonus  story  had  not  yet  figured  in  tragedy,  unless  this  play 
followed  the  Phoenissae,  which  is  unlikely.     The  theme  of  Hera- 

1  Cf.  Wilamowitz,  p.  110,  for  the  transference  of  the  precincts  from  Theseus 
to  Heracles. 


75 

cles'  removal  to  Athens  had  already  been  secured  by  the  mention 
of  the  precincts  (1328),  before  the  embracing  of  the  children  is 
spoken  of,  and  therefore  the  suspense  from  this  source  is  nil. 

To  sum  up  the  results  for  mythological  suspense,  then-  is  do 
reason  to  believe  that  the  audience  expected  anything  but  the 
deliverance  by  Heracles  of  the  harassed  family,  until  822.  Up 
to  this  point  the  suspense  of  anticipation  rests,  as  we  saw,  on  the 
familiar  sequence  of  the  suppliant  motive:  sanctuary,  violence, 
rescue. 

At  822  Iris  and  Lyssa  appear,  to  create  suspense  of  anticipa- 
tion, through  the  murder.  The  children  are  to  be  killed  (835); 
how,  is  not  said.  Knowing  that  Lycus  has  built  :t  pyre,  the 
audience  will  suppose,  until  the  angelia,  that  Heracles  will  throw 
the  children  upon  it. 


2.  Trachiniae. 

There  is  no  detailed  earlier  reference  to  the  content  of  this 
play,  and  until  the  later  sources  have  been  more  fully  analyzed, 
it  is  impossible  to  form  much  of  an  idea  as  to  the  nature  of  what 
Sophocles  and  his  audience  had  to  go  by.  (So  Wilamowitz,  p. 
71  ff.)  The  principal  question  is  whether  in  any  earlier  version 
the  marriage  with  Dcianeira  and  the  Nessus  poison  were  asso- 
ciated with  the  fiery  death  on  Mt.  Oeta.  If  that  was  the  case, 
the  audience's  mind  would  travel  directly  to  the  end  of  the  play 
from  555  ff.,  or  perhaps  from  the  mention  of  Iole  in  476  ff.  The 
Nessus1  story  must  have  been  familiar  to  many,  and  the  audience 
can  actually  jump  from  555  ff.  through  1173.  This,  however, 
was  certainly  an  old  independent  version  of  the  death  of  Heracles. 
So  likewise  was  the  burning  on  Mt.  Oeta,  and  different  versions 
of  that  appear  (Soph.  Phil.  670,  802,  1432;  Apollo.  1.  ii  7,  7.  11; 
Tzet.  on  Lye.  50).  Whether  or  not  the  conflation  of  the  two  thai 
appears  here,  and,  with  still  another  addition,  in  Apollod.  I.e.,  is 
older  than  this  play,  is  simply  a  non  liquet. 

Similarly,  if  the  capture  of  Oechalia2  had  been  previously  asso- 
ciated with  the  Nessus  shirt  and  a  jealousy  theme  in  which  Iole 
figured,  we  should  suspect  from  7  1   5  the  course  the  story  would 

1  The  earliest  source  is  Archiloehus  in  schol.  to  Ap.  Rh.,  i  1212.  F<W  later 
references  see  Roscher  s.v.  Nessus. 

2  We  know  from  the  epigram  in  Strabo  xiv,  1,  is  that  tins  in  Creophylus1 
version  contained  the  story  of  Iole;  see  Kinkel,  p.  60. 


76 

take.  Fahlnberg1  sees  in  Hyllus'  steadfast  refusal  to  light  the 
fire,  that  only  breaks  down  (1249)  under  a  conditional  curse 
(1239^40),  an  allusion  to  the  stoiy  that  Poeas  or  Philoctetes  lit 
the  pyre  (Soph.  Phil.  802,  etc.).  However,  it  is  inevitable  from 
1195-9  that  Heracles  will  be  burned,  and  who  touches  him  off 
does  not  much  matter. 


3.  Alcestis. 

For  the  Alcestis,  as  for  the  Trachiniae,  no  earlier  story  exists 
that  amounts  to  anything.  Reconstructions  are  therefore  the- 
oretical and  too  uncertain  to  serve  us  as  data.  The  evidence  is 
presented,  mixed  with  a  good  deal  of  speculation,  by  L.  Bloch, 
Neue  Jahrb.  f.  d.  Kl.  Alt,  1901,  40  ff.,  113  ff .  See  also  in  Wilam- 
owitz,  Isyllos,  p.  65  ff.,  an  attempt  to  trace  the  story  of  Alcestis 
to  Hesiod's  Eoiae;  the  evidence  is  very  scanty.  Compare  Robert, 
Thanatos,  p.  25  ff.  It  seems  probable  that  the  story  was  a  whole 
and  did  not  vary  in  its  main  lines  throughout  its  history  (so 
Bloch,  I.e.) :  Alcestis  dies  in  place  of  her  husband  and  is  won  back 
from  death  or  Hades  by  a  hero.  The  question  whether  she  was 
won  back  by  force  or  persuasion  (see  Bloch,  p.  41,  n.  1)  does  not 
here  affect  suspense,  as  it  is  a  matter  of  angelia  after  the  event. 

The  only  reference  with  any  bearing  on  the  story  is  Servius 
to  Aen.  iv  694,  "  alii  dicunt  Euripidem  Orcum  in  scaenam  inducere 
gladium  ferentem  quo  crinem  Alcesti  abscindat;  Euripidem  hoc  a 
Phrynicho  (0.  Jahn  for  poenia  F.,  phenico  T.)  antiquo  tragico 
mutuatum." 


4.  Heracleidae. 

Three  points  in  the  Heracleidae  demand  attention: 
1)  The  sacrifice  of  Macaria.  There  is  no  earlier  story  of  a 
willing  sacrifice  in  connection  with  this  plot.  Macaria  herself 
appears  as  present  at  the  death  of  Heracles  (Duris  Sam.  ap.  schol. 
Plat.  Hipp.  Mai.,  p.  293  A),  but  this  need  be  no  more  than  a 
conflation  of  Euripides  with  some  story  which  mentioned  Her- 
acles' children  as  present  at  his  death  upon  a  pyre.  For  the  will- 
ing sacrifice  theme,  see  the  discussion  above  under  Iph.  Aul. 
The  issue  of  the  play  itself  was  a  foregone  conclusion  to  every 

1  The  early  references  to  the  story  of  the  Trachiniae  are  well  presented  by  A. 
Fahlnberg,  De  Hercule  Tragico  Graecorum,  p.  10  ff.  See  also  Jebb's  Intr.  to 
Trachiniae. 


77 

Athenian,  and  therefore  after  403-9  it  was  certain  thai  someone 
would  have  to  be  sacrificed;  similarly  after  502,  thai  ii  will  be 
Macaria. 

2)  The  rescuing  of  the  Heracleidae  from  Eurystheus  was  told 
in  Hdt.  ix  26-7,  together  with  the  expedition  of  the  Argive 
suppliants.  Compare  Ar.  Plut.  385  and  schol.  for  a  painting  by 
Pamphilus,  which  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  audience  then; 
also  Thuc.  i  9;  Isoc.  Pan.,  p.  51;  Plut.  de  Mai.  Hdt.,  p.  872a; 
Aristides  Panath.,  p.  201.  The  story  was  common  amongsl 
panegyrists  of  the  fourth  century,  and  there  could  be  no  doubl  of 
the  issue.  The  incident  of  Macaria  is  thus  introduced  to  add 
interest.  The  mythological  suspense,  so  far  as  it  occurs,  is  purely 
that  of  anticipation. 

3)  The  Aristeia  of  Iolaus  and  the  fate  of  Eurystheus.  Iolaus 
was  famous  in  the  Theban  legend  as  the  great  charioteer  of 
Heracles.  (Hesiod  Scut.  74  ff.;  Archil,  fr.  118  B2;  Pind.  /.  i  16; 
v  32;  vii  9;  P.  xi,  60.)  He  also  killed  Eurystheus  (P.  ix  79). 
On  the  other  hand,  he  had  a  tomb  at  Eleusis  (0.  ix  98)  with  a 
legend  attached.  Whether  or  not  he  appeared  as  an  old  man  in 
the  pre-Euripidean  stoiy,  it  is  hard  to  tell.  Pindar  (P.  xi  79) 
mentions  him  simply  as  a  hero,1  but  this  is  a  different  legend  from 
ours,  for  there  he  is  buried  beside  Amphitryon.  The  death  of 
Eurystheus,  in  some  way  or  other,  was  an  inevitable  part  of  the 
Athenian  legend,  for  his  grave  existed  on  the  battlefield  (Paus.  i 
44,  10).  Here  it  is  postponed,  in  order  to  include  the  address 
1026  ff.,  which  bears  on  current  events. 

The  compulsion  of  the  saga  is  clearly  seen  from  966  to  the 
end.  Both  Herodotus  (I.e.)  and  Thucydides  (I.e.)  agree  thai 
Eurystheus  was  killed.  Euripides  brings  him  into  the  play, 
partly  from  interest,  partly  from  the  lack  of  other  greal  charac- 
ters, and  then  is  embarrassed  by  the  question  of  what  to  do  with 
him.  The  saga  said,  "Kill  him,"  but  this  was  not  a  sporting 
thing  to  do,  and  was  repugnant  to  his  patriotic  Athenian  feeling. 
So  the  responsibility  for  the  death  is  "put  up"  to  Alcmene  and 
to  her  alone.  There  is  keen  suspense  as  to  whether  he  will  be 
killed  or  not,  from  958  to  the  end  of  what  we  have  of  the  play. 

1  The  version  in  the  scholium,  that  he  rose  from  the  dead  on  this  occasion,  ifl 
probably  only  an  elaboration  of  the  Euripidean  metamoiphoe 


78 
VI.  Miscellaneous. 


1.  Bacchae. 

The  myth  of  Pcntheus  was  well  fixed  in  its  main  outlines  by- 
Aeschylus'  Pentheus.  17  8 e  pvdoiroua  KeTrcu  Trap'  AurxuXw  h  Uevdei. 
Ar.  Byz.  in  Arg.  to  Bacchae.  The  play  will  here  be  considered  in 
relation  to  the  Athenian  audience  (cf.  Schol.  Ar.  Ran.  64).  It  may 
have  been  originally  brought  out  in  Macedonia.  See  H.  Weil 
Etudes,  p.  110.  Aeschylus'  Xantriae  may  have  also  dealt  with 
the  same  story  (Schol.  Eum.  26;  see  Nauck2,  s.v.,  p  55).  It  is  also 
one  of  the  few  tragic  stories  for  which  we  have  a  vase-painting 
of  the  severe  type  (Hartwig  Jahrb.  Arch.  Inst,  vii,  p.  157;  Taf. 
5.  Picture  in  Roscher  hi  2,  1931-2).  Pentheus  (named)  is  being 
torn  to  pieces  by  two  female  figures,  one  of  whom  is  labeled 
/Al>  EN  E.  The  completeness  of  the  tearing — all  the  lower  part 
of  his  body  is  gone — and  the  few  Maenads  actually  engaged  in 
pulling  at  the  remains,  suggest  that  the  artist  or  his  predecessor 
had  in  mind  a  version  like  that  of  Bac.  1127-8: 
aveenrapa^ev  up,ov,  ovx  U7r6  adkvovs 
d\X'  6  debs  evp,apeiav  kireblbov  xcpotJ'. 
Hartwig  (I.e.)  supposes  that  in  this  version  Pentheus  was  torn  in 
pieces  by  Maenads  accompanying  Dionysus,  not  by  his  own 
mother  and  aunts.     Cf.  Aesch.  Eum.  25-6: 

e£  ovre  fianxcus  karpar^yriadv  deos 
Xcryco  8Lkt]v  HevdeZ  Karappa\f/as  p.bpov. 
In  the  Xantriae  Erinyes  seem  to  have  been  present: 
as  ovre  7rep.0i£  17X101;  TrpocrSep/cerai 
ovt'  a(TTepo}Tr6v  6p.fxa  AT/rwas  /coprys. 
Cf.  P.  V.  796  (the  Phorcides);  Eum.  71-2.     Compare  with  this 
the  two  late  Italian  vase-paintings,  representing  an  Erinys  (Bull. 
Nap.  iv,  tav.  2,  3:  Dilthey,  Arch.  Zeit.,  31,  taf.  7,  3).     Nonnus 
(Dionys.     44-6)  represents  Dionysus  as  calling  to  his  aid  Lyssa, 
Mene,  and  Oestrus,  but  only  to  drive  insane  Pentheus,  his  mother 
and  his  aunts.     The  murder  is  performed  by  Agaue.     In  one  of 
the  Fury  vases  (Bull.  Nap.,  I.e.)  this  creature  (here  I  have  only 
the  description  in  Roscher)  stands  over  Pentheus  while  a  Maenad 
attacks  him;  this  might  fit  with  the  Nonnus  story.     But  in  the 
other  (Dilthey)  she  conducts  the  attack  herself,  with  a  panther. 
On  both  these  vases  she  is  dressed  in  hunting  costume.     Com- 
pare the  language  of  Aesch.  Eum.  25-6. 


79 

Thus  we  seem  to  have  these  possibilities: 

1)  Pentheus  was  killed  by  Maenads  (Attic  vase  6-5  cent.)  ; 

2)  Pentheus  was  killed  by  Agaue,  etc.  (Euripides  and  later 
literature  generally) ; 

3)  Pentheus  was  killed  by  a  Huntress  Fury  (?)  (vase  ap. 
Dilthey).  Acsch.  Eum.  25-6  seems  to  have  followed  fche  firsl 
version,  and  in  none  of  the  vases,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  are  the 
Maenads  named.  In  support  of  the  second  possibility,  a  fury 
seems  to  be  mentioned  in  Xantriae  (Fr.  170  N.) 

However,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  in  neither  the  Xantriae  nor 
the  Pentheus  was  the  murder  committed  by  Agaue.  The  diver- 
gence is  far  too  important  to  be  overlooked  by  Aristophanes  of 
Byzantium  even  in  a  brief  note  (v.  supr.),  and  the  Bacchar  ap- 
pears throughout  to  be  an  echo  of  an  Aeschylean  crime  and 
punishment  cycle;  cf.  Bac.  25  ff.  If  the  Semele  occurred  in  the 
same  trilogy,  as  is  likely  (Welcker,  Aesch.  Tril.  327  ff. ;  Sandys 
Intr.  Batch,  xxvi  ff.)  the  hybris  of  Semele's  sisters  would  occur 
there  and  be  punished  later.  Thus,  again,  if  the  murder  of 
Pentheus  was  a  punishment  for  Agaue  as  well  as  for  the  mur- 
dered man,  an  anagnorisis  must  follow  as  in  Bac.  1277  ff.  This 
is  the  only  issue  beside  the  murder  that  calls  forth  objective 
suspense.  The  death  of  Pentheus  is  quite  certain;  the  legend 
cannot  exist  without  it.  For  the  anagnorisis,  as  we  see,  an 
earlier  parallel  is  likely. 

Euripides  appears  to  play  upon  the  uncertainty  as  to  who  ac- 
tually will  murder  Pentheus.  In  32  Dionysus  mentions  Agaue 
and  her  sisters  as  roaming  mad  through  the  mountains.  But 
compare  52 — in  the  event  of  trouble,  £vi>a\pu  nat.v6.aL  arpaTrjXaTtiv — 
an  echo  of  the  very  language  of  Eum.  25-6.  The  economy  of 
the  play  makes  it  increasingly  clear  that  Pentheus  will  be  mur- 
dered by  his  relatives,  as  is  in  fact  inevitable.  The  real  Bac- 
chanals are  the  chorus;  such  a  scene  could  not  be  enacted  en 
the  stage,  and  that  the  chorus  should  leave  to  do  it  is  almost  as 
unthinkable.  When  Pentheus  (810  ff.)  is  persuaded  to  go  and 
seek  out  the  mad  women  on  the  mountain  the  issue  can  no  Longer 
be  in  doubt. 

There  is  thus  suspense  of  uncertainty  rising  from  the  double 
tradition,  as  to  who  will  actually  kill  Pentheus,  and  this  i-  grad- 
ually cleared  away  by  the  lines  themselves. 


80 

2.  Supplices  (Aeschylus). 

Reconstructions  of  previous  versions  are  based  mainly  on  this 
play.     (See  Wilam.  Interp.,  p.  12  ff.) 

The  suppliant-theme  presupposed,  as  was  noted  under  Eur. 
Andr.  (cf.  Dieterich,  I.e.),  a  rescuer.  Thus  in  this  play  there 
has  to  be  a  rescuer  to  complete  the  motive,  although  this  ran 
counter  to  the  saga,  which  is  resumed  in  the  succeeding  play  of 
the  trilogy,  where  the  Danaids,  in  some  way,  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  Aegyptids.  If  we  accept  this  as  a  pre-existing  tradition, 
the  suppliancy  of  the  Danaids  and  their  reception  by  a  Pelasgic 
king  runs  counter  to  the  legend.  It  was  probably  inserted  here 
simply  to  make  a  play.  Thus  the  compulsion  of  the  saga  and 
the  compulsion  of  religious  feeling  (later  developed,  as  we  saw, 
into  a  stock  dramatic  motive),  contradict  each  other,  and  this 
issue  doubtless  caused  lively  suspense  of  uncertainty  through  965. 
The  compromise  is  effected  by  giving  the  play  to  the  suppliant 
motive  and  the  trilogy  to  the  saga.  Notice  the  title  of  this  play 
and  the  vague  name  of  the  rescuer  king,  merely  a  lay  figure  with 
no  footing  in  the  legend;  cf.  Euadne  in  Eur.  Sup.  and  Macaria 
in  the  Heracleidae. 


3.  Prometheus. 

What  suspense  there  is  in  this  play  depends  almost  entirely 
upon  allusions  to  already  known  myths.     These  are: 

1)  A  further  punishment  for  Prometheus  than  the  one  he  is 
already  undergoing;  311-3,  992  ff.,  1015  ff.,  1080  ff.,  992  ff. 
This  is  spoken  of  only  in  terms  of  a  terrible  storm,  together  with 
an  earthquake  or  volcanic  eruption.  Prometheus  is,  however, 
immortal  and  indestructible.  Nothing  is  said  of  a  long  period 
of  punishment  of  another  kind.  At  the  same  time,  this  seems  to 
indicate  something  more  radically  different  than  the  addition  to 
his  present  pains  caused  by  the  eagle  feeding  upon  his  liver 
(Theogony  523-5),  which  would  have  been  a  legitimate  inference 
from  311-3.  A  further  punishment  of  Prometheus  would  prob- 
ably take  the  line  explained  in  347  ff.,  in  the  description  (without 
strict  external  connection)  of  the  burden  of  Atlas  in  the  west  and 
of  Typhos  buried  under  Aetna.  Bapp  (Roscher  iii  2,  3042) 
points  the  illuminating  parallel  between  Typhos  under  Aetna  and 
Prometheus  under  a  Caucasus  believed  volcanic.  Atlas  is  Pro- 
metheus' brother  in  the  Theogony  (1.  509),  and  his  other  brother, 


81 

Menoetius,  was  there  sent  down  to  Erebus  (1.  515).  Compare 
the  fate  of  the  Titans  in  general  w]10  warred  od  (  Hympus  |  Ttu  og. 
617  ff.;  729  ff.;  814).  Hesiod  docs  not  say  where  Prometheus 
was  confined,  except  that  he  gives  the  story  of  the  eagle  feeding 
on  his  liver  (Theog.  523  ff.).  This  would  be  conceivable  in  misty 
Tartarus;  hardly  under  a  mountain.  Hcsiod's  uncertainty 
probably  accounts  for  Aeschylus'  inclusion  of  the  suggestive 
passage  347-76.  Thus  both  from  the  Theogony  and  from  \< 
chylus  himself  we  get  the  answer  to  the  question  of  what  furl  her 
punishment  can  be  meted  out  to  Prometheus.  As  to  a  distinc- 
tion between  being  buried  under  a  mountain,  and  confined  in 
Tartarus,  both  Aeschylus  and  Hesiod  are  undoubtedly  hazy 
(note  especially  P.  V.  1043-53),  but  the  hearers  would  derive  no 
confusion  from  these  poems  that  did  not  already  exist  in  their 
own  minds. 

2)  A  possible  deliverance  of  Prometheus  far  in  the  future.  No 
less  than  three  quite  independent  myths  are  brought  to  bear  on 
this  point.  All  are  presented  in  fragmentary,  allusive  form  and 
would  have  no  point  at  all  unless  they  referred  to  stories  already 
known. 

a)  The  oracle  about  Thetis  and  Zeus.  This  is  the  most  mud- 
dled of  the  three.     The  gist  of  it  appears  (764) : 

yaptl  yap.ov  tolovtov  a>  ttot'  a.o'xa.Xa ' 
768  r)  re£ercu  yt  7raZ5a  (frtprepov  7rarpos. 

So  909-10 

yapov  yaptlv  6s  avrov  en  TvpavviSos 
dpbvmv  t*  aiorov  tK^aXtl. 

This  is  explained  in  Pind.  /.  viii  28  ff.  Zeus  and  Poseidon  con- 
tend for  the  hand  of  Thetis,  but  are  deterred  by  Themis,  who  tells 
them  that  Thetis  is  fated  to  bear  a  son — (peprtpov  ybvov  avaKra 
■n-arpos.  These  two  references  point,  if  not  to  a  single  epic  poem, 
at  least  to  a  widely  current  tradition  of  the  early  fifth  century. 
The  pronouncement  in  Aeschylus  affects  both  Thetis  and  Zeus; 
that  in  Pindar  merely  says  that  Thetis  will  bear  a  son  greater 
than  his  father.  But  Aeschylus,  or  Prometheus,  is  not  con- 
sistent here.     755-6: 

vvv  ovdtv  ton  Tepp.a  pot  ivpoK.tip.tvov 
poxOoov  Tplv  av  Zers  tKirtafl  rvpavviSos. 

The  predictions  following  are  in  the  uncompromising  future  tense. 

6 


82 

Prometheus,  that  is,  knows  that  Zeus  will  be  overthrown  and 
trusts  to  come  into  his  rights  in  the  general  revolution.  And 
yet,  a  little  later — 769 — we  read: 

"Ico,    ov8'  toriv  avr<2  Trj<r8'  awoGT po(j>i)  tvxvs  > 
Up.    ov  brJTa,  ir\ijv  €7^7'  av  tn  btcfxuiv  \vdeis. 
and  in  913  (Cf .  167  ff.) : 

Toicovde  ixbxQoiv  eKTpoirfjv  ovdels  de&v 
bvvair'  av  avrCo  ir\rjv  ep.ov  5e?£cu  cameos. 
This  means  that,  taken  strictly,  the  decree  of  fate  is  identical 
with  that  in  Pindar;  it  concerns  primarily  Thetis,  and  Zeus  is  at 
liberty  to  put  himself  under  it  or  not.  Thus  there  are  two  strata 
to  the  corpus  of  inside  information  which  Prometheus  has  re- 
ceived from  his  mother:  1)  the  unalterable  degree  that  Thetis' 
son  will  be  better  than  his  father;  2)  the  incomplete  foreknowl- 
edge that  Zeus  will  one  day  seek  Thetis,  in  marriage,  and  will  get 
her  if  he  fails  to  find  out  about  the  fate  of  her  offspring.  This 
situation  is  absurd,  and  unthinkable  in  any  one  connected 
mythological  account.  Thus  it  shows  clearly  that,  as  Wilam- 
owitz  says  (Aesch.  Inter.,  p.  134;  cf.  Weil,  Etudes,  p.  74  ff.),  the 
connection  between  the  marriage  of  Thetis  and  Prometheus 
was  invented  by  Aeschylus  and  is  purely  for  dramatic  purposes. 
It  is  necessary,  because  some  such  device  alone  can  give  Prome- 
theus a  real  hold  on  Zeus  and  make  a  counter-action. 

b)  Liberation  by  Heracles.  This  was  part  of  the  Heracles 
saga  (Bapp  ay.  Roscher,  hi2  3043;  Wilam.,  I.e.,  p.  132),  a  bit  of 
which  found  its  way  into  the  Theogony,  526-34,  where  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  Theog.  616,  which  leaves  Prometheus  bound.  The 
motive  given  is  Zeus'  desire  to  glorify  his  son  (530  ff.),  and 
Prometheus  is  pardoned.  An  echo  of  this  appears  in  P.  V.  259: 
Xo.  ov8'  eaTLv  txd\ov  repfxa  001  irpoKelfievov  ', 
Tip.  ovk  aXKo  7'  ovbkv,  ir\i]v  orav  Ke'ivco  dour), 
before  the  real  themes  of  the  play  have  been  more  than  alluded 
to  (101-3,  167  ff.).  In  772  ff.,  871  ff.,  Prometheus  refers  to  his 
own  actual  deliverer.  He  will  be  of  the  thirteenth  generation 
from  Io  in  direct  descent,  and  will  be  a  famous  archer.  The 
audience  knew  from  the  first  reference  who  the  deliverer  would 
be,  not  perhaps  because  they  knew  that  Heracles  appeared  in  the 
thirteenth  generation  from  Io  in  some  non-Attic  epos,  but  be- 
cause he  was  the  only  deliverer  of  Prometheus.  This  is  fairly 
well  settled  by  the  t6£oi<u  k\€lv6s  872. 


83 

c)  Cheiron.  Up  to  line  1006,  Prometheus  has  beei  threatening, 
and  declaring  his  own  conditions  of  peace  with  Zeus.  In  L026  9 
Hermes    imposes    a    counter    condition    from    the    constituted 

authority: 

TOiovdc  ijloxOov  Tepfxa  fj.rj  tl  irpoaSoKa, 
irplv  av  decov  rts  8'.a8oxos  tuv  cdv  ttoplov 
<t>avfj,  6e\riay  t'  els  avavyqTov  fxoXetu 
"Ai8r)i>  Kvetpcua  t'  ap.cpl  Taprdpov  fiadr). 

For  an  explanation  of  this  we  have  to  lake  refuge  in  Apollodorus, 
(a),  ii  5,  4,  5;  (b)  ii  5,  11,  10;  in  (a)  the  centaur  Cheiron,  wounded 
incurably,  descends  into  Hades  and  gives  up  his  immortality  to 
Prometheus;  in  (b)  a  formal  transfer  takes  place  on  the  ( Caucasus 
under  circumstances  corresponding  to  those  of  the  fragmei 
Prometheus  Lyomenos.  Cheiron  need  not  have  been  present .  but 
Heracles  irapeax^  tcc  Ail  Xeipccva  OvqaKtiv  .  .  .  dekovra.  The 
olive  wreath,  which,  teste  Athenaeo  674  D,  appeared  in  the 
Prometheus  Lyomenos,  appears  here.  For  lack  of  other  evidence 
we  must  refer  Cheiron  (as  Wilamowitz,  Inter.,  p.  132),  to  the 
Heracles  saga,  from  which  Aeschylus  drew  the  freeing  of  Prome- 
theus. This  was  of  Thessalian  origin,  like  the  story  of  t lie  death 
on  Mt.  Oeta.  Note  the  places  mentioned  by  Apollodorus,  ii  5,  4; 
also  the  Centaurs;  Heracles  armed  with  bow  and  arrows  instead 
of  a  club,  in  P.  V.  872  and  Theog.  526-34,  a  version  current  when 
Aeschylus  wrote.  Possibly  it  was  followed  by  Pherecydes,  who 
told  of  the  shooting  of  the  eagle.  See  Schol.  Ap.  Ph.  ii  1249;  iv 
1346. 

A  further  question  suggested  by  a  review  of  the  source-  is 
whether  or  not  Prometheus  was  represented  as  chained  on  the 
top  of  a  mountain,  where  he  could  converse  with  divinities  of  the 
air  and  sea,  in  any  version  previous  to  Aeschylus'  plays.  The 
Theogony  leaves  the  place  of  confinement  obscure;  of  the  two 
Apollodorus  passages  about  Cheiron,  the  one  representing  the  act 
of  Heracles  is  clearly  drawn  from  the  Prometheus  I. 
Horace  (Odes,  ii  13,  37),  speaks  of  Prometheus  suffering  with 
Tantalus  in  the  underworld,  and  (Epodes,  xvii  67)  oames  him, 
beside  Tantalus  and  Sisyphus,  as  Prometheus  "obligatus  aliti." 
This  seems  at  least  a  parallel  for  a  Prometheus  sui  in  the 

underworld,  with  the  bird  of  prey.     An  answer  to  this  question 
would  require,  beside  a  thorough  review  of  the  later  sources  for 


84 

Prometheus,  a  reconstruction  of  the  contents  of  the  Heracles  epic 
or  epics  from  which  Stesichorus  in  the  Geryoneis,  Pherecydes, 
Aeschylus,  and  possibly  even  Hesiod,  drew. 

The  Prometheus  is  interesting  as  being  a  primitive  attempt  at 
suspense  of  objective  issue  by  means  of  several  different  possibili- 
ties. Thus  the  further  punishment  for  Prometheus,  the  possible 
marriage  between  Thetis  and  Zeus,  the  rescue  by  Heracles,  and 
the  substitution  of  Cheiron,  are  severally  presented  without  any 
considerable  attempt  to  correlate  them  with  each  other.  The 
mind,  therefore,  of  the  reader  or  hearer  is  reduced  to  a  state  of 
inextricable  confusion.  The  work  to  a  degree  resembles  some 
early  Flemish  painting,  which  combines  almost  preternatural 
insight  and  splendor  of  detail  with  imperfect  composition  and 
perspective. 


SUMMARY. 


It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  too  detailed  a  classifica- 
tion of  the  methods  used  to  produce  suspense  from  mythological 
confusion  or  certainty,  is  impracticable.  Methods  spring  naturally 
out  of  individual  plots  and  connect  themselves  with  literary 
and  dramatic  devices,  such  as  delays,  stage  business,  conflicts 
of  will,  and  so  forth. 

It  appears,  however,  that  mythological  suspense  tends  rather 
clearly  to  divide  into  two  classes,  that  of  anticipation  and  that  of 
uncertainty. 

In  suspense  of  anticipation  the  issue  is  known  beforehand 
either  through  something  said  in  the  prologue  or  by  the  unanimity 
of  familiar  tradition.  Here  the  poet's  duty  is  to  complicate  the 
means  to  the  end  so  that  it  seems  remote  and  difficult,  however 
inevitable  (as  in  Eur.  EL),  or  to  lead  up  to  it  by  a  series  of  powerful 
suggestions  (as  in  Oed.  Tyr.),  so  that  the  paradox  of  inevitabil- 
ity and  unfulfilment  dangles  momently  before  our  eyes.  Some- 
times suspense  of  anticipation  as  to  the  one  issue  may  be  rein- 
forced by  suspense  of  uncertainty  as  to:  a)  another  secondary 
issue,  as  in  Agamemnon,  where  there  is  certainty  as  to  the  death, 
uncertainty  as  to  the  weapon;  or  in  Choephoroe,  which  shows 
certainty  as  to  the  death  of  Clytaemestra  and  Aegisthus,  uncer- 
tainty as  to  order  and  relative  importance  of  the  two  deaths;  or, 


85 

b)  a  subsequent  issue,  as  in  Iph.  Taur.,  where  there  is  certainty 
as  to  the  anagnorisis,  uncertainty  as  to  the  fate  of  the  cap- 
tives. 

That  suspense  of  anticipation  was  not  considered  simply  a 
disagreeable  makeshift  is  shown  by  the  treatment  of  the  /<>/<.  In 
the  Ion,  the  content  of  the  anagnorisis  is  given,  in  a  divinely  ut- 
tered prologue,  and  the  recognition  of  Ion  by  Xuthus  as  his  heir 
is  there  predicted.  This  makes  a  foregone  conclusion  of  the  en- 
tire play  down  through  675,  but  leaves  suspense  (with  the  reser- 
vation noted  s.v.  Ion)  of  Creusa's  attempt  on  the  lives  of 
Xuthus  and  Ion,  and  of  her  immediate  recognition  of  her  boy. 
Greek  tragedies  began  with  one  simple  episode  and  expanded 
later  into  two  or  several  simple,  successive  episodes.  We  have 
not  extant,  until  the  Iph.  Aul.,  a  modern  drama  of  intrigue,  in 
which  one  complicated  issue  makes  an  entire  play.  In  the  Ion, 
therefore,  suspense  of  anticipation  appears  side  by  side  with  that 
of  uncertainty,  as  a  recognized  dramatic  device. 

We  have  seen  suspense  of  anticipation  developed  by  the 
following  means: 

1)  Delaying  the  introduction  of  a  theme  known  to  be  part 
of  the  story :  Rhesus. 

2)  Increasing  the  emphasis  on  some  one  character:  Athena 
in  Aias. 

3)  Developing  by  suggestion  and  a  progressive,  uninterrupted 
action  the  expectation  of  a  certain  event  known  from  the  saga: 
Bacchae,  Heracleidae,  Phoenissae,  Septem,  Euripides'  Supplices, 
Aias,  Agamemnon,  Sophocles'  Electra,  Euripides'  Electra,  Choe- 
phoroe,  Cyclops,  Troiades,  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  Persae,  Andromache. 

4)  Introducing  a  matter  of  common  belief,  like  the  burial  of 
a  hero:  Heracles  (Heracles  at  Athens),  Heracleidae,  Aias  (burial 
of  Aias),  Medea  (Medea  at  Athens),  Orestes,  Eumenides  (survival 
of  Orestes),  Ion  (Ion  as  eponymous  hero),  Helen  (Helen  and 
Menelaus  at  Sparta),  Oedipus  Coloneus,  Phoenissae  (Oedipus  at 
At  hens) . 

5)  Using  a  conventional  theme  not  peculiar  to  the  Btory  in 
hand,  with  a  certain  stock  conclusion:  Suppliancy — Aeschylus' 
Supplices,  Andromache,  Heracles,  Helen,  Heracleidae,  Euripides' 
Supplices:  Willing  sacrifice — Iphigeneia  Aulidensis,  Heeabe, 
Phoenissae,  Alcestis,  Heracleidae,  Euripides'  Supplies;  Stupid 
barbarian  and  clever  Greek — Helen,  Iphigeneia  Taurica. 


86 

6)  Echoes  of  other  plays:  Heracles,  Andromache,  Euripides' 
Electra,  (Polymestor  in  the  Hecabe) ,  Helen,  (Iphigeneia  Taurica) . 

Suspense  of  uncertainty  is  assumed  to  be  the  normal  form  of 
modern  dramatic  suspense,  and  in  the  Greek  tragedies  we  see  it 
in  process  of  development.  In  the  extant  plays  we  can  watch 
it  growing  from  a  simple  ritual  motive  like  Aeschylus'  Supplices 
or  from  an  historical  pageant  like  the  Persae,  where  every  con- 
clusion is  foregone,  through  stages  like  the  Eumenides  and  Oedipus 
Tyrannus,  where  a  simple  uncertainty  is  stated  and  worked  out, 
to  a  complicated  drama  of  intrigue  like  the  Iphigeneia  Taurica 
or  Orestes,  where  the  audience  could  be  sure  of  nothing.  When 
the  methods  of  these  latter  plays  were  transferred  to  manufac- 
tured middle  class  characters,  there  arose  New  Comedy,  where 
the  audience  had  no  clue  to  the  outcome.  But  suspense  of 
uncertainty  in  New  Comedy  labored  under  two  disadvantages: 
1)  the  compulsion  of  the  situation,  where  the  hero  had  to  marry 
the  heroine,  and  the  stray  girl  had  to  be  recognized  as  the  pluto- 
crat's long-lost  daughter;  2)  the  demand  for  a  happy  ending. 
This  is  seen,  for  example,  in  Plautus'  Captivi  and  Rudens,  where 
the  author  thinks  so  little  of  suspense  of  uncertainty  as  to  outline 
his  whole  plot  in  the  prologue  with  more  fulness  than  appears  in 
any  extant  play  of  Euripides. 

A  moment's  reflexion  will  show  us  that  so  far  from  being  un- 
usual in  modern  and  contemporary  drama,  this  lack  of  real  un- 
certainty characterizes  a  large  type  of  comedy-melodramas  from 
As  You  Like  It  and  Minna  von  Barnhelm  to  'Way  Down  East. 
In  fact  it  is  often  only  by  some  rather  forced  and  not  always  con- 
vincing development  of  alternatives,  that  real  uncertainty  can  be 
brought  into  a  play  at  all.  If  the  compulsion  of  the  saga  was 
strong  in  the  ancient  drama,  the  compulsion  of  mood  is  strong  in 
ours.  The  conclusion  is  that  in  the  developed  Greek  tragedy  of 
415-400  B.C.  there  was  very  little,  if  any,  less  suspense  of  ob- 
jective issue  than  in  our  stage. 

The  following  means  were  noted  of  creating  suspense  of  un- 
certainty : 

1)  Changing  the  order  of  events  so  that  a  known  situation 
points  to  an  unknown  outcome:  Odysseus  and  Diomedes  in 
Rhesus;  burial  of  Polyneices  in  Antigone. 


87 

2)  Altering  or  introducing  details  of  incidenl  or  description: 

Rhesus;  Philoctetes  (Lemnos  :i  desert),  Cyclops,  Agamemnon 
(sword  or  ax,  fire-beacon),  Choephoroe,  Sophocles'  Electra,  i  limp- 
ides'  Electra. 

3)  Altering  emphasis  on  a  character  so  as  to  make  his  rdle  in 

the  story  seem  to  differ  from  the  accepted  saga:  Rhesus  (Rh< 
Agamemnon  (Aegisthus),  Iphigeneia  Aulidensis  (Achill. 

4)  Working  in  a  story  new  or  unfamiliar:  Hecabe,  Eumen 
Orestes,  Iphigeneia  Taurica,  Helen,  Antigone  (Haemon),  Euripides' 
Supplices  (Euadne),  Ion. 

5)  Giving  a  special  function  to  the  chorus:  Philoctetes,  Iphi- 
geneia Aulidensis. 

6)  Introducing  a  non-dramatic  theme:  Iphigeneia  Taurica 
(willing  sacrifice).  Usually  this  presupposes  the  end,  bu1  here 
the  end  is  the  opposite  of  what  we  expect  of  the  willing-sacrifice 
theme. 

7)  Developing  a  novel  situation  with  inner  suspense  of  its 
own:  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  Andromache,  Oedipus  Coloneus. 

8)  Combining  two  or  more  previously  unconflatcd  myths 
about  the  same  characters:  Philoctetes,  Prometheus,  and  probably 
the  Trachiniae  and  Heracles. 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


COGSMVbai? 


?f™*N     $'R9C!dLATIpN  DEPARTMENT 

+      ^02  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  mode  4  days  prior  to  ,he  due  dof 
Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling      642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FORM  NO.  DD6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


